advanced materials by design

Advanced Materials by Design

June 1988

NTIS order #PB88-243548

Recommended Citation:U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Advanced Materials by Design, OTA-E-351 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1988).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 87-619860

For sale by the Superintendent of DocumentsU.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

(order form can be found in the back of this report)

Foreword

This assessment responds to a joint request from the House Committee on Sci-ence, Space, and Technology and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, andTransportation to analyze the military and commercial opportunities presented by newstructural materials technologies, and to outline the Federal policy objectives that areconsistent with those opportunities.

New structural materials–ceramics, polymers, metals, or hybrid materials derivedfrom these, called composites–open a promising avenue to renewed international com-petitiveness of U.S. manufacturing industries. There will be many opportunities for useof the materials in aerospace, automotive, industrial, medical, and construction appli-cations in the next 25 years. This assessment addresses the impact of advanced struc-tural materials on the competitiveness of the U.S. manufacturing sector, and offers policyoptions for accelerating the commercial utilization of the materials.

in recent years, several excellent studies have been published on both ceramicsand polymer matrix composites. This assessment draws on this body of work andpresents a broad picture of where these technologies stand today and where they arelikely to go in the future. OTA appreciates the assistance provided by the contractors,advisory panel, and workshop participants, as well as the many reviewers whose com-ments helped to ensure the accuracy of the report.

Advanced Materials by Design Advisory Panel

Rodney W. Nichols, ChairmanExecutive Vice President, The Rockefeller University

J. Michael BowmanDirector, Composites VentureE. I. du Pent de Nemours & Co.

Robert BuffenbargerChairman, Bargaining CommitteeInternational Association of Machinists

Joel ClarkAssociate Professor of Materials SystemsMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Laimonis EmbrektsConsultantDix Hills, NY

Samuel GoldbergPresident, INCO-US, Inc.New York, NY

Sheldon LambertConsultantPiano, TX

James W. MarProfessorDepartment of Aeronautics and AstronauticsMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Arthur F. McLeanManager, Ceramics ResearchFord Motor Co.

Joseph PanzarinoDirectorR&D of High Performance CeramicsNorton Co.

Dennis W. ReadeyChairmanCeramics Engineering DepartmentOhio State University

B. Waker RosenPresidentMaterials Sciences Corp.

Amy L. WaltonMember, Technical StaffJet Propulsion Laboratory

Alvin S. WeinsteinConsultantConcord, NH

Dick J. WilkinsDirectorCenter for Composite MaterialsUniversity of Delaware

NOTE: OTA appreciates the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members. The paneldoes not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this assessment. OTA assumes full responsibilityfor the assessment and the accuracy of its contents.

iv

OTA Project Staff for Advanced Materials by Design

LioneI S. Johns, Assistant Director, OTAEnergy, Materials, and International Security Division

Peter D, Blair, Energy and Materials Program Manager

Gregory Eyring, Project Director, November 1985 - June 1988

Laurie Evans Gavrin, Analyst, June 1986 - June 1988

Thomas E. Bull, Project Director, June 1985 - November 1985

Joan Adams, Analyst, June 1985 - January 1986

Administrative Staff

Lillian Chapman Linda Long Tina Brumfield

Contents

PageOverview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter l. Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Chapter 2. Advanced Ceramics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Chapter 3. Polymer Matrix Composites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Chapter 4. Metal Matrix Composites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Chapter 5. Factors Affecting the Use of Advanced Structural Materials. . ... ... .... 121

Chapter 6. Impacts on the Basic Metals Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......137

Chapter 7. Case Study: Polymer Matrix Composites in Automobiles . . . . . . . ... ....155

Chapter 8. Industrial Criteria for Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............187

Chapter 9. International Business Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....203

Chapter 10. Col laborative R&D: A Solution? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .251

Chapter 11. The Military Role in Advanced Materials Development . .............269

Chapter 12. Policy Issues and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........291

Appendix A. Contractors and Workshop Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .315

Appendix B. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........320

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...329

—

Overview

New structural materials technologies will bea determining factor in the global competitive-ness of U.S. manufacturing industries in the 1990sand beyond. Today, for instance, materials ac-count for as much as 30 to 50 percent of the costsof most manufactured products. New materialsthat can reduce overall production costs and im-prove performance can provide a competitiveedge in many products, including aircraft, auto-mobiles, industrial machinery, and sporting goods.

Remarkable advances in structural materialstechnologies have been made in the past 25years. New materials such as ceramics and com-posites offer superior properties (e.g., high-tem-perature strength, high stiffness, and light weight)compared with traditional metals such as steeland aluminum. What is more, the materials them-selves can be designed to have the propertiesrequired by a given application. Use of such de-signed materials, which are often called “ad-vanced,” can lead to higher fuel efficiencies,lower assembly costs, and longer service life formany manufactured products.

Although the United States has achieved astrong position in advanced materials technol-ogies, largely as a result of military programs, itis by no means certain that the United States willlead the world in the commercialization of thesematerials. The technologies are still in their in-fancy, and cost-effective use of advanced mate-rials and fabrication processes is yet to be dem-

onstrated in large-scale commercial applications.Potential end users in the United States haveadopted a “wait and see” attitude, pending thesolution of remaining technical and economicproblems. However, through well-coordinatedgovernment-industry efforts, several countries,notably Japan, have initiated more aggressive pro-grams to commercialize their evolving materialstechnologies. These programs have succeededin bringing advanced material products to themarket years in advance of comparable U.S.products. Concern about the U.S. competitiveposition has led Congress to seek a coherent na-tional program to ensure that the United Stateswill be able to capitalize on the opportunitiesoffered by advanced materials.

Advanced materials can be classified as metals,ceramics, polymers, or composites, which gen-erally consist of fibers of one material held to-gether by a matrix of a second material. Com-posites are designed so that the fibers providestrength, stiffness, and fracture toughness, and thematrix binds the fibers together in the proper ori-entation. This assessment focuses on three prom-ising categories of structural materials: ceramics(including ceramic matrix composites), polymermatrix composites, and metal matrix composites.The principal purpose is to describe the majoropportunities for use of ceramics and composites,and to identify steps that the Federal Governmentcould take to accelerate the commercializationof advanced materials technologies in the UnitedStates.

THE U.S. ADVANCED MATERIALS ENVIRONMENTThe current value of components produced petitive posture, is improved by use of the mate-

from advanced structural ceramics and compos- rials. When the overall value of these productsites in the United States is less than $2 billion per is taken into account, use of advanced structuralyear. However, by the year 2000, U.S. produc- materials is likely to have a dramatic impact ontion is expected to grow to nearly $20 billion. This gross national product, balance of trade, and em-estimate includes only the value of the materials ployment.and structures; it does not include the value ofthe finished products (e.g., aircraft and automo- Military demand for high performance materi-biles), whose performance, and therefore com- als in the United States has already created a

1

2 ● Advanced Materials by Design

thriving community of advanced materials sup-pliers. These suppliers are also seeking commer-cial applications for their materials. At present,though, advanced materials developed for mili-tary applications are expensive, and fabricationprocesses are poorly suited for mass production.

Potential U.S. commercial end users believethat major use of these materials will not be prof-itable within the next 5 years, the typical plan-ning horizon of most firms. In many cases, 10 to20 years will be required to solve remaining tech-nical problems and to develop rapid, low-costmanufacturing methods. Investment risks areespecially high for commercial end users becausethe costs of scaling up laboratory processes forproduction are enormous, and the rapid pace oftechnology evolution could make these processesobsolete. Hence, there is very little commercial

“market pull” on advanced materials technol-ogies in the United States.

In contrast to the market pull orientation offirms in the United States, end users in foreigncompetitor nations, notably in Japan, are pursu-ing a “technology push” approach, in whichnear-term profits are sacrificed in favor of gain-ing the production experience necessary to se-cure a share of the large future markets. This ag-gressive approach will probably give these firmsa significant advantage in exploiting global mar-kets as they develop. OTA finds that manufac-turing experience over time with advanced ma-terials will be a prerequisite for competing inthose markets; U.S. companies should not expectto be able to step in and produce competitiveadvanced materials products after the manufac-turing problems have been solved by others.

THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTThe Federal Government directly affects the de-

velopment of advanced materials through fund-ing of basic research, technology demonstrationprograms, and military and aerospace procure-ment of advanced materials and structures. TheU.S. Government currently spends about $167million per year for R&D on structural ceramicsand composites, more than any other nation.

Counting only basic and early applied research,the Department of Defense (DoD) sponsors about60 percent ($98 million) of this total. In the caseof the military, the government itself is the cus-tomer for materials technology and hardware.Advanced materials are truly enabling technol-ogies for many military systems such as the Na-tional Aerospace Plane, Stealth aircraft, and mis-siles; they can also enhance the mission capabilityof a host of less exotic systems such as tanks,ships, submarines, and ground vehicles. Trans-fer of DoD-funded materials technology to thecommercial sector, however, is discouraged by

two major factors. First, the high cost of militarymaterials and fabrication processes limits theiracceptance in the commercial sector. Second, todeny these advanced materials to the U.S.’s ad-versaries, the government imposes restrictions onthe export of the materials and on access to re-lated technical data.

About 40 percent ($69 million) of Federalspending for structural ceramics and compositesR&D is nonmilitary in nature, including most ofthat funded by the Department of Energy, the Na-tional Aeronautics and Space Administration, theNational Science Foundation, the National Bu-reau of Standards, and the Bureau of Mines.These agencies generally do not act as procurersof hardware. Rather, they sponsor materials re-search ranging from basic science to technologydemonstration programs, according to their vari-ous mission objectives. Where appropriate, theyopenly seek to transfer materials technology tothe private sector.

FOUR KEY POLICY OBJECTIVESOTA’s analysis suggests four key Federal pol- cialization of advanced materials technologies.

icy objectives that could accelerate the commer- Options for implementing these objectives range

from those that have a broad scope, and affect 3. Facilitate more effective commercial exploi-many technologies, to those that specifically af- tation of military R&D investments wherefeet advanced materials technologies. possible.

1. Encourage potential end users to make long- ln the next 5 to 10 years, military demand forterm capital investments in advanced ma- advanced materials is likely to grow at a fasterterials. pace than commercial demand, so that military

Greater investment in advanced materials by policies and requirements will strongly influence

the agenda for advanced materials developmentpotential end users would help to generate more in the United States. It is evident that governmentcommercial market pull on these materials in theUnited States. The climate for investment in long-

restrictions on advanced materials and associatedtechnical data in the interests of national secu-

term, high-risk technologies such as advanced rity can cause conflict with U.S.-based firms seek-materials could be improved by Federal Govern- ing unrestricted access to markets and informa-ment implemention of a variety of policy optionsdesigned to make more patient investment cap-

tion. Furthermore, these conflicts are likely tobecome more severe as commercial applications

ital available. These would include providing tax grow and as the companies involved becomeincentives for long-term capital investment, re-ducing taxes on personal savings, and changing

more multinational.

tort law to make product liability proportional to Ultimately, both national security and a com-proven negligence. . petitive manufacturing base will depend on a

2. Facilitate government/university/industry col-strong domestic advanced materials capability.

laboration in R&D for low-cost materials fab-Therefore, a major goal of U.S. policy should beto strike an appropriate balance between mili-

rication. tary and commercial interests+ Among the optionsThe high cost of advanced materials develop- that could be considered are: updating export

ment and the small near-term markets are forc- control lists so that they are applied only to tech-ing companies to seek collaborative R&D ar- nologies that provide important military advan-rangements to spread the risks and raise the large tage to the United States and that are not avail-amounts of capital required. Three major reser- able to our adversaries from other sources;voirs of materials expertise are available to U.S. greater support for military programs aimed at de-companies: 1) universities, 2) Federal labora- veloping low-cost materials fabrication processestories, and 3) small high-technology firms. Among that could be adapted for commercial use; andindustry/university and industry/Federal labora- clarification &military domestic sourcing policiestory collaborative centers in advanced materials, for advanced materials.OTA finds that industry generally participates to 4. Build a strong advanced materials technol-gain access to new ideas and trained graduates t u d e n t s .

ogy infrastructure.

up costs too high and the payofffs too uncertain Through acquisitions, joint ventures, and li-to justify commercialization of collaborative re- censing agreements, materials technology is flow-search results. The government could encourage ing rapidly among firms and across nationalthe commercialization step by establishing col- borders. Critical advances continue to come fromIaborative centers in which government and in- abroad, and the flow of materials technology intodustry would share the costs of downstream ma- the United States may already be as importantterials fabrication technology development. - as that@ It is essential that an adequateAnother option would be to provide incentives technology be in place for rapidlyfor large companies to work with those small, capitalizing on research results, whether theyhigh technology firms that have advanced ma- originate in the United States or abroad. Policyterials fabrication expertise, but lack the capital options for building up this infrastructure include:to explore its commercial potential. increasing funding for research on reliable, low-

Chapter 1

Executive Summary

CONTENTSPage

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7New Structural Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Ceramics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Polymer Matrix Composites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Metal Matrix Composites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Research and Development Priorities.. . . . . . 15

Factors Affecting the Use of AdvancedMaterials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Integrated Design and Manufacturing . . . . . . 15Automation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Multidisciplinary Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Education and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Systems Approach to Costs ........ . . . . . . 17Energy Costs.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

impacts of Advanced MateriaIs onManufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Substitution, .,....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18innovative Designs and New Products . . . . . . 18

Industry Investment Criteria for AdvancedMaterials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Cost and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20International Business Trends.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Ceramics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Polymer Matrix Composites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Metal Matrix Composites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Government/University/Industry Collaborationand Industrial Competitiveness . . . . . . . . . . 24

Military Role in Advanced MaterialsDevelopment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Policy issues and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Projections Based on a Continuation of the

Status Quo..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Encourage Long-Term Investment by

Advanced Materials End Users . . . . . . . . . . 28Facilitate Government/University/Industry

Collaboration in R&D for Low-CostMaterials Fabrication Processes . . . . . . . . . . 28

Facilitate More Effective CommercialExploitation of Military R&D InvestmentsWhere Possible.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Page

Build a Strong Advanced MaterialsTechnology Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Two Views of Advanced Materials Policies. . . . 31Advanced Materials Policies in a Broader

Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

FiguresFigure No. Page1-1.1-2.1-3.

1-4.

1-5.

1-6.

1-7.

The Family of Structural Materials . . . . . . . 9 Composite Reinforcement Types . . . . . . . . 9Maximum Use Temperatures of VariousStructural Materials . . . . . . + . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Comparison of the Specific Strength andStiffness of Various Composites and Metals 10Projected U.S. Markets for StructuralCeramics in the Year 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Typical Body Construction Assembly UsingTwo Major PMC Moldings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Relative lmportance of Cost andPerformance in Advanced Materials UserIndustries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

TablesTable No. Page1-1. U.S. Materials and Minerals Legislation . . . 71-2. Hypothetical Multidisciplinary Design

Team for a Ceramic Component . . . . . . . . 161-3. Estimated Production Value of Advanced

Ceramics, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211-4. Estimated Government Funding in Several

Countries for Advanced Ceramics R&D in1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

1-5. Breakdown of Regional Markets forAdvanced Composites by End Use...... . 22

1-6. Distribution of Advanced PMC Productionin Western Europe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

1-7. U.S. Government Agency Funding forAdvanced Structural Materials inFiscal Year 1987. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Chapter 1

Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION

During the past 25 years, unprecedented progresshas been made in the development of new struc-tural materials. These materials, which includeadvanced ceramics, polymers, metals, and hy-brid materials derived from these, called compos-ites, open up new engineering possibilities for thedesigner. Their superior properties, such as thehigh temperature strength of ceramics or the highstiffness and light weight of composites, offer theopportunity for more compact designs, greaterfuel efficiency, and longer service life in a widevariety of products, from sports equipment tohigh performance aircraft. In addition, thesematerials can lead to entirely new military andcommercial applications that would not be fea-sible with conventional materials. A graphic ex-ample is the construction of the composite air-plane Voyager, which flew nonstop around theworld in December 1986.

In the next 25 years, new structural materialswill provide a powerful leverage point for themanufacturing sector of the economy: not onlycan ceramic and composite components deliversuperior performance, they also enhance the per-formance and value of the larger systems–e.g.,aircraft and automobiIes—i n which they are in-corporated. Given this multiplier effect, it is likelythat the application of advanced structural ma-terials will have a dramatic impact on gross na-tional product, balance of trade, and employmentin the United States. All of the industrializedcountries have recognized these opportunitiesand are competing actively for shares of the largecommercial and military markets at stake.

As indicated in table 1-1, Congress has longbeen concerned with materials issues, datingback to the Strategic War Materials Act of 1939.Through the 1950s, legislation continued to fo-cus on ensuring access to reliable supplies of stra-tegic materials in time of national emergency. The1970s saw legislative interest broaden to includethe economic and environmental implications ofthe entire materials cycle, from mining to disposal.

Table 1-1 .—U.S. Materials and Minerals Legislation

Strategic War Materials Act–193953 Stat. 811

Established the National Defense Stockpile, intendedto accumulate a 5-year supply of critical materials foruse in wartime or national emergency.

Strategic and Critical Materials Stockpiling Act—194660 Stat. 596

Authorized appropriation of money to acquire metals,oils, rubber, fibers, and other materials needed inwart i me.

Defense Production Act— 195064 Stat. 798

Authorized the President to allocate materials and fa-cilities for defense production, to make and guaranteeloans to expand defense production, and to enter intolong-term supply contracts for scarce materials.

Resource Recovery Act— 1970Public Law 91-512

.Established the National Commission on MaterialsPolicy to develop a national materials policy, includingsupply, use, recovery, and disposal of materials.

Mining and Minerals Policy Act– 1970Public Law 91-631

Encouraged the Secretary of the Interior to promote in-volvement of private enterprise in economic develop-ment, mining disposal, and reclamation of materials.

Strategic and Critical Stockpiling Revision Act—1979Public Law 96-41

Changed stockpile supply period to 3 years, limited tonational defense needs only; established a stockpiletransaction fund.

National Materials Policy, Research andDevelopment Act– 1980

Public Law 96-479Directed the President to assess material demand, sup-plies, and needs for the economy and national securi-ty; and to submit a program plan to implement thefindings of the assessment.

National Critical Materials Act— 1984Public Law 98-373

Established the National Critical Materials Council inthe Executive Office of the President; the Council wasauthorized to oversee the development of policiesrelating to both critical and advanced materials; and todevelop a program for implementing these policies.

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1988

In 1984, these concerns were extended to en-compass advanced materials with the NationalCritical Materials Act (Public Law 98-373, Title II).In this Act, Congress established the National Crit-

7


ical Materials Council in the Executive Office ofthe President and charged it with the responsi-bility of overseeing the formulation of policies re-lating to both “critical” and “advanced” mate-rials. The intent was to establish a policy focusabove the agency level to set responsibilitiesfor developing materials policies, and to coordi-nate the materials R&D programs of the relevantagencies.

With the passage of the National Critical Ma-terials Act, Congress formally recognized that adomestic advanced materials manufacturing basewill be critical for both U.S. industrial competi-tiveness and a strong national defense, and thatprogress in achieving this objective will be stronglyinfluenced by Federal policies. Congressional in-terest in advanced materials technologies hascentered on several key issues:

1. What are the major potential opportunitiesfor advanced structural materials, and what

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

factors will affect the time required to real-ize these opportunities?What will be the impact of advanced mate-rials on manufacturing industries in the UnitedStates?What is the competitive position of the UnitedStates in these technologies, and what trendsare likely to affect this position?How can the federally funded advanced ma-terials R&D in universities and Federal lab-oratories be used more effectively to boostthe competitiveness of U.S. firms?What are the implications of the large mili-tary role in advanced materials developmentfor the commercial sector?What policy options does the Federal Gov-ernment have to accelerate the commerciali-zation of advanced materials technologies?

These questions comprise the framework of thisassessment.

NEW STRUCTURAL MATERIALS

New structural materials can be classified asceramics, polymers, or metals, as shown in fig-ure 1-1. Two or more of these materials can becombined together to form a composite that hasproperties superior to those of its constituents.Composites generally consist of fibrous or par-ticulate reinforcements held together by a com-mon matrix, as illustrated in figure 1-2. Continu-ous fiber reinforcement enhances the structuralproperties of the composite far more than par-ticles do. However, fiber-reinforced compositesare also more expensive and difficult to fabricate.

Composites are classified according to their ma-trix phase. Thus, there are ceramic matrix com-posites (CMCs), polymer matrix composites (PMCs),and metal matrix composites (MMCs). Materialswithin these categories are often called “advanced”if they exhibit properties, such as high tempera-ture strength or high stiffness per unit weight,that are significantly better than those of moreconventional structural materials, such as steeland aluminum. This assessment focuses on ad-vanced structural ceramics (including CMCs),PMCs, and MMCs. New metal alloys and unrein-

forced engineering plastics, which may also legiti-mately be considered advanced materials, are notcovered.

Figure 1-3 compares the maximum use temper-atures of the three primary categories of struc-tural materials. Organic materials such as poly-mers generally melt or char above 600° F (3160C); the most refractory metals lose their usefulstrength above 1900° F (10380 C); ceramics, how-ever, can retain their strength above 30000 F(1649° C) and can potentially be useful up to5000° F (2760° C). In applications such as heatengines and heat exchangers, in which efficiencyincreases with operating temperature, ceramicsoffer potential energy savings and cost savingsthrough simpler designs than would be possiblewith metals.

Figure 1-4 compares the “specific” strength andstiffness (strength and stiffness per unit weight)of some advanced materials with those of con-ventional metals. The specific stiffness of alumi-num can be increased by a factor of 3 by mixingthe metal with 50 percent by volume silicon car-.

Ch. 1—Executive Summary . 9

Figure 1-1 .—The Family of Structural Materials

Includes ceramics, polymers, and metals. Reinforcementsadded to these materials produce ceramic matrix composites(CMCs), polymer matrix composites (PMCs), and metal matrixcomposites (MMCs). Materials in the shaded regions are dis-cussed in this assessment.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1968.

bide fibers to form an MMC. Even more impres-sive are PMCs such as graphite fiber-reinforcedepoxy (graphite/epoxy), which may have specificstrengths and stiffnesses up to 4 times those ofsteel and titanium (measured along the directionof fiber reinforcement). Such properties make itpossible to build composite structures having thesame strength and stiffness as metal structures butwith up to 50 percent less weight, a major advan-tage in aircraft and space applications.

Although the physical and mechanical prop-erties of ceramics and composites are impressive,the true hallmark of these advanced materials isthat they are “tailored” materials; that is, theyare built up from constituents to have the prop-erties required for a given application. Further-more, a composite structure can be designed sothat it has different properties in different direc-tions or locations. By judicious use of fiber orother reinforcement, strength or stiffness can beenhanced only in those locations where they are

Figure 1-2.—Composhe Reinforcement Types

,

SOURCE: Carl Zweben, General Electric Co.

most needed. Great efficiencies of design andcost are made possible by this selective place-ment of the reinforcement..


Figure 1-3.—Maximum Use Temperatures ofVarious Structural Materials

II.

.Polymers Metals Ceramics

SOURCE: “Guide to Selecting Engineered Materials,” a special issue of AdvancedMaterials and Processes, vol. 2, No. 1, 1967.

Figure 1-4.–Comparison of the Specific Strengthand Stiffness of Various Composites and Metalsa

Specific tensile strength (relative units)Silicon carbide fiber-reinforced aluminum and graphite fiber-reinforced epoxy composites exhibit many times the strengthand stiffness of conventional metals.aSpecific properties are ordinary properties divided by density. Properties are

measured along the direction of fiber reinforcement.bSteel: AISI 304; Aluminum: 6061-T6; Titanium: Ti-6A1-4V).


The development of advanced materials hasopened a whole new approach to engineeringdesign. In the past, the designer has started witha material and has selected discrete manufactur-ing processes to transform it into the finishedstructure. With the new tailored materials, thedesigner starts with the final performance require-

ments and literally creates the necessary materi-als and the structure in an integrated manufac-turing process. Thus, with tailored materials, theold concepts of materials, design, and fabricationprocesses are merged together into the new con-cepts of integrated design and manufacturing.

These technologies differ greatly in their levelsof maturity; e.g., PMCs are by far the most de-veloped, whereas CMCs are still in their infancy.In addition, the applications and market oppor-tunities for these materials vary widely. For thesereasons, the three primary categories of materi-als treated in this assessment are discussed sep-arately below.

Ceramics

Ceramics encompass all solids that are neitherorganic nor metallic. Compared with metals, cer-amics have superior wear resistance, high tem-perature strength, and chemical stability; theyalso generally have lower thermal conductivity,thermal expansion, and lower toughness (i.e.,they tend to be brittle). This brittleness causesthem to fail catastrophically when applied stressis sufficient to propagate cracks that originate atmicroscopic flaws in the material. Flaws as smallas 20 micrometers (about one one-thousandth ofan inch) can reduce the strength of a ceramiccomponent below useful levels.

Several approaches have been taken to improvethe toughness of ceramics. The most satisfactoryis to design the microstructure of the material toresist the propagation of cracks. Ceramic matrixcomposites, which contain dispersed ceramicparticulate, whiskers, or continuous fibers, arean especially promising technology for toughen-ing ceramics. Another approach is the applica-tion of a thin ceramic coating to a metal substrate;this yields a component with the surface prop-erties of a ceramic combined with the high tough-ness of metal in the bulk.

Market Opportunities for Ceramics

Market demand for structural ceramics is notdriving their development in most applicationsat the present time. In 1987, the U.S. market foradvanced structural ceramics was estimated at

Ch. 1—Executive Summary ● 11

only $171 million, primarily in wear-resistant ap-plications. Projections to the year 2000, though,place the U.S. market between $1 billion and $5billion annually, spread among many new appli-cations discussed below.

Early estimates that projected a $5 billion U.S.market for ceramics i n automotive heat engines(gasoline, diesel, or gas turbine) by the year 2000now appear to have been too optimistic. Morerecent estimates indicate that the U.S. ceramicheat engine market in the year 2000 will be lessthan $1 billion, However, a large number of othercommercial applications for ceramics are possi-ble over this time period; examples are given infigure 1-5.

Current Production

Ceramics such as aluminum oxide, silicon ni-tride, and silicon carbide are in production forwear parts, cutting tool inserts, bearings, andcoatings. The market share for ceramics in theseapplications is generally less than 5 percent, butsubstantial growth is expected. The U.S. marketsfor the ceramic components alone could be over$2 billion by the year 2000. R&D funding is cur-rently being provided by industry and is drivenby competition in a known market. Current mil-itary applications i n the United States include ra-domes, armor, and infrared windows.

Ceramics are also in limited production (in Ja-pan) in discrete engine components such as tur-bochargers, glow plugs, rocker arms, and pre-combustion chambers, asconsumer products.

well as a number of

Near-Term Production

Near-term production (the next 10 to 15 years)is expected in advanced bearings, bioceramics(ceramics used inside the body), construction ap-plications, heat exchangers, electrochemical de-vices, discrete components in automobile en-gines, and military applications, Large markets areat stake. The technical feasibility has been dem-onstrated, but scale-up, cost reduction, and de-sign optimization are required before U.S. indus-try will invest large sums in the needed research.In the meantime, government funding will be re-quired to supplement industry R&D in order to

Figure 1-5.— Projected U.S. Markets for Structural‘Ceramics in the Year 2000 (billions of dollars)

1.0 ‘

0.5

SOURCES: a U S Department of Commerce, “A Competitive Assessment of theU S Advanced Ceramics Industry” (Washington, DC, U S Govern-ment Printing Office, March 1964)

b E.P. Rothman, J. Clark, and H.K. Bowen, Ceramic Cutting TooIS: AProduction Cost Model and an Analysts of Potential Demand,” Ad-vanced Ceramic Materials, American Ceramics Society, Vol 1, No4, October, 1986, pp. 325-331

c High Technology, March 1986, p. 14d Business Communications Co, Inc, as reported in Ceramic Indus-

try, Jan 1988, p 10e David W Richerson, “Design, Processing Development, and Manu-

facturing Requirements of Ceramics and Ceramic Matrix Compos-ites,” contractor report prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, December 1965

f Assumes a doubling from 1986 Paul Hurley, ‘New Filters Can CleanUp in New Markets,” High Technology, August 1987

achieve a production capability competitive withforeign sources.

Far-Term Production

Far-term applications (beyond 15 years) of ce-ramics will require solution of major technicaland economic problems. These include an ad-vanced automotive turbine engine, an advancedceramic diesel (although ceramics could be usedin military versions of these engines at an earlierdate), some electrochemical devices, militarycomponents, and heat exchangers. A variety ofother turbine engines, especially turbines for air-craft propuIsion and for utiIity-scale power gen-eration, shouId also be categorized as far-term.In general, the risks are perceived by U.S. indus-try to be too high to justify funding the needed


research. Advances in these applications arelikely to be driven by government funding.

Polymer Matrix Composites

PMCs consist of high strength short or contin-uous fibers which are held together by a com-mon organic matrix. The composite is designedso that the mechanical loads to which the struc-ture is subjected in service are supported by thefiber reinforcement.

PMCs are often divided into two categories:reinforced plastics and so-called “advanced com-posites. ” The distinction is based on the level ofmechanical properties (usually strength and stiff-ness); however, there is no clear-cut line sepa-rating the two. Plastics reinforced with relativelylow-stiffness glass fibers are inexpensive, and theyhave been in use for 30 to 40 years in applica-tions such as boat hulls, corrugated sheet, pipe,automotive panels, and sporting goods. Ad-vanced composites, which are used primarily inthe aerospace industry, have superior strengthand stiffness. They are relatively expensive andtypically contain a large percentage of high-performance continuous fibers (e.g., high stiffnessglass, graphite, aramid, or other organic fibers).In this assessment, only market opportunities foradvanced composites are considered.

Chief among the advantages of PMCs is theirlight weight coupled with high stiffness andstrength along the direction of reinforcement.Other desirable properties include superior re-sistance to corrosion and fatigue. One genericlimitation of PMCs is temperature. An upper limitfor service temperatures with present compositesis about 600° F (316 o C). With additional devel-opment, however, temperatures near 800° F(427° C) may be achieved.

Market Opportunities forPolymer Matrix Composites

About 85 percent of PMCs used today are glassfiber-reinforced polyester resins. Currently, lessthan 2 percent of PMCs are advanced compos-ites such as those used in aircraft and aerospaceapplications. However, U.S. production of ad-vanced PMCs is projected to grow by 15 percent

annually for the remainder of the century, in-creasing from a 1985 value of $1.4 billion tonearly $12 billion by the year 2000. The indus-try continues to be driven by aerospace markets,with defense applications projected to grow byas much as 22 percent annually in the next fewyears.

Current Production

Aerospace applications of polymer compositesaccount for about 50 percent of current PMCsales in the United States. Sporting goods, suchas golf clubs and tennis rackets, account for 25percent. The PMC sporting goods market is con-sidered mature, however, with projected annualgrowth rates of only 3 percent. Automobiles andindustrial equipment round out the current listof major uses of advanced composites, with a 25percent share.

Near-Term Production

Advanced PMCs were introduced into the hori-zontal stabilizer of the F-14 fighter in 1970, andthey have since become the baseline materialsin high-performance fighter and attack aircraft.The major near-term challenge for compositeswill be use in large military and commercial trans-port aircraft. Advanced PMCs currently compriseabout 3 percent of the structural weight of com-mercial aircraft such as the Boeing 757, but thatfraction could eventually rise to more than 65 per-cent in new transport designs.

The single largest near-term opportunity forPMCs is in the manufacture of automobiles. Com-posites currently are in limited production inbody panels, drive shafts, and leaf springs. By thelate 1990s, composite automobile bodies couldbe introduced by Detroit in limited production.The principal advantage of a composite bodywould be the potential for parts consolidation,which could result in lower assembly costs. Com-posites can also accommodate styling changeswith lower retooling costs than wouId be possi-ble with metals.

Additional near-term markets for polymer com-posites include medical implants, reciprocatingindustrial machinery, storage and transportation

Ch. 1—Executive Summary ● 1 3

of corrosive chemicals, and military vehicles andweapons.

Far-Term Production

Beyond the turn of the century, PMCs couldbe used extensively in construction applicationssuch as bridges, buildings, manufactured hous-ing, and marine structures where salt water cor-rosion is a problem. Realization of this potentialwill depend on development of cheaper materi-als, changes in building codes, and of designs thattake advantage of compounding benefits of PMCs,such as reduced weight and increased durabil-ity. I n space, a variety of composites will be usedin the proposed National Aerospace Plane, andthey are also being considered for the tubularframe of the National Aeronautics and Space Ad-ministration’s (NASA) space station. Compositesof all kinds, including MMCs, PMCs, and CMCswould be a central feature of space-based weap-ons systems, such as those under considerationfor ballistic missile defense.

Metal Matrix Composites

MMCs usually consist of a low-density metalsuch as aluminum or magnesium reinforced withparticulate or fibers of a ceramic material, suchas silicon carbide or graphite. Compared with theunreinforced metal, MMCs have significantlygreater stiffness and strength, as indicated in fig-ure 1 -4; however, these properties are obtainedat the cost of lower ductility and toughness.

Market Opportunities forMetal Matrix Composites

At present, metal matrix composites remain pri-marily materials of military interest in the UnitedStates, because only the Department of Defense’s(DoD) high-performance specifications have justi-fied the materials’ high costs. The future commer-cial markets for MMCs remain uncertain for tworeasons. First, their physical and mechanicalproperties rarely exceed those of PMCs or CMCs.For example, the melting point of the metal ma-trix keeps the maximum operating temperaturefor MMC components to a level significantly be-low that of ceramics; as new high-temperaturePMCs are developed, this squeezes further the

temperature window in which MMCs have anadvantage. Also, because the density of the metalmatrix is higher than that of a polymer matrix,the strength-to-weight ratio of MMCs is generallyless than that of PMCs (figure 1-4).

A second source of uncertainty relates to cost.MMCs tend to cluster around two extreme types:one type consists of high-performance compos-ites reinforced with expensive continuous fibersand requiring expensive processing methods; theother consists of relatively low-cost, low-perform-ance composites reinforced with relatively inex-pensive particulate and fibers. The cost of thefirst type is too high for any but military or spaceapplications, whereas the cost/benefit advantagesof the second type over metal alloys remain indoubt.

Photo credit United Technologies Research Center

Fracture surface of boron fiber-reinforced aluminummetal matrix composite.


Thus, it is unclear whether MMCs will becomethe materials of choice for a wide variety of ap-plications or whether they will be confined tospecialty niches in which the combinations ofproperties required cannot be satisfied by othermaterials. The key factors will be whether thecosts of the reinforcements and of the manufac-turing processes can be reduced while the prop-erties are improved. Costs could be reduced sub-stantially if net-shape processes currently usedwith metals, such as casting or powder tech-niques, can be successfully adapted to MMCs.

Current Production

Current markets for MMCs are primarily in mil-itary and aerospace applications. ExperimentalMMC components have been developed for usein aircraft, jet engines, missiles, and the NASAspace shuttle. The first production application ofa particulate-reinforced MMC is a set of coversfor a missile guidance system.

Photo credit: Toyota Motor Corp.

Aluminum diesel engine piston with local fiberreinforcement in ring groove area.

The most significant commercial application ofMMCs to date is an aluminum diesel engine pis-ton produced by Toyota that is locally reinforcedwith ceramic fibers. Toyota produces about300,000 annually. The ceramic reinforcementprovides superior wear resistance in the ringgroove area. Although data on the productioncosts of these pistons are not available, this de-velopment is significant because it suggests thatMMC components can be reliably mass-producedto be competitive in a very cost-sensitive appli-cation.

Future Production

Based on information now in the public do-main, the following military and aerospace ap-plications for MMCs appear attractive: high-tem-perature fighter aircraft engines and structures;the National Aerospace Plane skin and engines;high-temperature missile structures; high-speedmechanical systems, and electronic packaging.

Applications that could become commercial inthe next 5 to 15 years include automotive pistons,brake components, connecting rods, and rockerarms; rotating machinery, such as propeller shaftsand robot components; computer equipment,prosthetics, electronic packaging, and sportinggoods. However, the current level of develop-ment effort appears to be insufficient to bringabout commercialization of any of these appli-cations in the United States in the next 5 years,with the possible exception of diesel enginepistons,

MMC materials with high specific stiffness andstrength could be used in applications in whichan important factor is reducing weight. Includedin this category are land-based vehicles, aircraft,ships, and high-speed machinery. The relativelyhigh cost of MMCs will probably prevent theirextensive use in commercial land-based vehiclesand ship structures. However, they may well beused in specific mechanical components such aspropeller shafts, bearings, pumps, transmissionhousings and components, gears, springs, andsuspensions.


Research and Development Priorities

In spite of the fact that ceramics, PMCs, andMMCs are at different stages of technologicalmaturity, the R&D challenges for all three cate-gories are remarkably similar. The four most im-portant R&D priorities are given below.

Processing Science

This is the key to understanding how process-ing variables such as temperature, pressure, andcomposition influence the desired final proper-ties. The two principal goals of processing scienceshould be to support development of new, low-cost manufacturing methods, and to help bringabout better control over reproducibility so thatlarge numbers of components can be manufac-tured within specification limits.

Structure-Property Relationships

The tailorable properties of advanced materi-als offer new opportunities for the designer. How-ever, because advanced materials and structures

are more complex than metals, the relationshipsamong the internal structure, mechanical prop-erties, and failure mechanisms are less well un-derstood. A better understanding of the effectsof an accumulation of dispersed damages on thefailure mechanisms of composites is especiallydesirable.

Behavior in Severe Environments

Many applications may require new materialsto withstand high-temperature, corrosive, or ero-sive environments. These environments may ex-acerbate existing flaws or introduce new flaws,leading to failure. Progress in this area would fa-cilitate reliable design and life prediction.

Matrix= Reinforcement Interfacein Composites

The poorly understood interracial region hasa critical influence on composite behavior. Par-ticularly important would be the development ofinterracial coatings that would permit the use ofa single fiber with a variety of matrices.

FACTORS AFFECTING THE USE OF ADVANCED MATERIALS

Broader use of advanced structural materialswill require not only solutions to technical prob-lems, but also changes in attitudes among re-searchers and end users who are accustomed tothinking in concepts more appropriate to con-ventional materials.

Traditionally, materials are considered to beone (usually inexpensive) input in a long chainof discrete design and manufacturing steps thatresult in the output of a product. The new tai-lored materials require a new paradigm. The ma-terials and the end products made from them be-come indistinguishable, joined by an integrateddesign and manufacturing process. This neces-sitates a closer relationship among researchers,designers, and production personnel, as well asnew approaches to the concept of materials costs.

Integrated Design and Manufacturing

Advanced ceramics and composites shouldreally be considered as structures rather than as

materials. Accordingly, it becomes essential tohave a design process capable of producinghighly integrated and multifunctional structures.Consider the body structure of an automobile.A metal body currently has between 250 and 350distinct parts. Using PMCs, this number could bereduced to between 2 and 10.

Because composites can be tailored in so manyways to the various requirements of a particuIarengineering component, the key to optimizingcost and performance is a fully integrated designprocess capable of balancing all of the relevantdesign and manufacturing variables. Such a de-sign process requires an extensive database onmatrix and fiber properties, sophisticated softwarecapable of modeling fabrication processes, andthree-dimensional analysis of the properties andbehavior of the resulting structure. Perhaps themost important element in the development ofintegrated design algorithms will be an under-standing of the relationships among the constit-


uent properties, microstructure, and the macro-scopic properties of the structure. The R&Dpriorities listed above are intended to provide thisinformation.

Automation

The need for integrated design and manufac-turing sheds light on the extent to which auto-mation will be able to reduce the costs of ad-vanced materials and structures. Automation canbe used for many purposes in advanced materi-als manufacturing, including design, numericalmodeling, materials handling, process controls,assembly, and finishing. Automation technologiesthat aid in integrating design and manufacturingwill be helpful. For example, computer-aided de-sign (CAD) and numerical modeling are likely tohelp bring the designer and production engineerin closer contact.

Automation in the form of computer controlof advanced materials processing equipment isan important evolving technology for solving cur-rent manufacturing problems. In ceramics, newprocesses controlled by microprocessors or com-puters will be critical in minimizing flaw popu-lations and increasing process yields. In PMCs,the costly process of hand lay-up will be replacedby computer-controlled tape laying machines andfilament winding systems. However, large-scaleprocess automation will be effective in reducingcosts only if the process is well characterized andthe allowable limits for processing variables arewell understood. In general, manufacturing proc-esses for advanced materials are still evolving, andattempts to automate them in the near term couldbe premature.

Multidisciplinary Approach

Advanced materials development lends itselfnaturally to—and probably will demand—relaxingthe rigid disciplinary boundaries among differentfields. This is true whether the materials devel-opment is performed in government laboratories,universities, or industry. For example, the neces-sity for integrating design and manufacturing ofadvanced materials and structures implies closerworking relationships among industry profession-als involved in manufacturing a product. For a

Photo credit: Cincinnati Milacron Co.

Composite tape-laying machine shown applying 3-inch-wide tape to compound-angle “tool” in the

manufacture of an aircraft part.

typical ceramic component, an industry teamcould include one or more professionals fromeach of the disciplines in table 1-2.

Education and Training

The expanding market opportunities for cer-amics and composites will require more scien-tists and engineers with broad backgrounds inthese fields. At present, only a few universitiesoffer comprehensive courses in ceramic or com-posite materials. There is also a shortage of prop-

Table 1-2.—Hypothetical Multidisciplinary DesignTeam for a Ceramic Component

Specialist Contribution

Systems engineer . . . . . . . Defines performanceDesigner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Develops structural conceptsStress analyst . . . . . . . . . . Determines stress for local

environments and difficultshapes

Metallurgist. . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlates design with metallicproperties and environments

Ceramist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Identifies proper composition,reactions, and behavior fordesign

Characterization analyst . . Utilizes electron microscopy,X-ray, fracture analysis, etc.to characterize material

Ceramic manufacturer . . . Defines production feasibilityand costs

SOURCE: J.J. Mecholsky, “Engineering Research Needs of Advanced Ceramicsand Ceramic Matrix Composites,” contractor report for OTA, Decem-ber 1985.


erly trained faculty members to teach suchcourses. The job market for graduates with ad-vanced degrees in ceramic or composite engi-neering is good, and can be expected to expandi n the future. Stronger relationships between in-dustry and university laboratories are providinggreater educational and job opportunities forstudents.

There is a great need for continuing educationand training opportunities for designers and engi-neers in industry who are unfamiliar with the newmaterials. I n the field of PMCs, for instance, mostof the design expertise is concentrated in theaerospace industry. Small businesses, professionalsocieties, universities, and Federal laboratoriescould all play a role in providing this training.Continuing education regarding the potential ofadvanced materials is particularly important inrelatively low-technology industries such as con-struction, which must purchase, rather than de-velop, the materials they use.

Beyond the training of professionals, there isa need for the creation of awareness of advancedmaterials technologies among corporate execu-tives, planners, technical media personnel, andthe general public. In recent years, the numberof newspaper and magazine articles about theremarkable properties of ceramics and compos-ites has increased, as has the number of techni-cal journals associated with these materials. Thesuccess of composite sports equipment, includ-ing skis and tennis rackets, shows that such ma-terials can have a high-tech appeal to the pub-lic, even if they are relatively expensive.

Systems Approach to Costs

Without question, the high cost per pound ofadvanced materials will have to come down be-fore they will be widely used in high-volume, low-cost applications. This high cost is largely at-tributable to the immaturity of the fabricationtechnology and to low production volumes, andcan be expected to drop significantly in the fu-ture. For example, a pound of standard high-strength carbon fiber used to cost $300, but now

costs less than $20, and new processes based onsynthesis from petroleum pitch promise to reducethe cost even further. However, these advancedmaterials will always be more expensive thanbasic metals. Therefore, end users must takeadvantage of potential savings in fabrication, in-stallation, and life-cycle costs to offset the highermaterial costs; in other words, a systems ap-proach to costs is required.

As the example of the PMC automobile bodycited above demonstrates, savings in tooling, as-sembly, and maintenance costs could result inlower cost, longer lasting cars in the future.Viewed from this systems perspective, advancedmaterials may become more cost-effective thanconventional materials in many applications.

Energy Costs

The cost of energy used in the manufacture ofadvanced materials and structures is generallyonly 1 to 2 percent of the cost of the finishedproduct. However, the energy cost savings ob-tained over the service life of the product is amajor potential advantage of using the new ma-terials. For example, the high temperature capa-bilities of ceramics can be used to increase thethermal efficiency of heat engines, heat ex-changers, and furnace recuperators. Fuel savingsalso result from reducing the weight of groundvehicles and aircraft through the use of light-weight composites.

The decline of fuel prices in recent years hasreduced energy cost savings as a selling point fornew products, and has therefore reduced the at-tractiveness of new materials. For example, in theearly 1980s one pound of weight saved in a com-mercial transport aircraft was worth $300 in fuelsavings over the life of the aircraft, but is nowworth less than $100. At $300 per pound ofweight saved, the higher cost of using compos-ites could be justified; at a premium of only $100per pound, aluminum or aluminum-lithium al-loys are more attractive. Persistently low fuelprices would delay the introduction of advancedmaterials into such applications.


IMPACTS OF ADVANCED MATERIALS ON MANUFACTURING

The advent of advanced structural materialsraises questions concerning their impact on ex-isting manufacturing industries in the UnitedStates. This impact can be conceptually dividedinto two categories: substitution by direct replace-ment of metal components i n existing products,and use in new products that are made possibleby the new materials. Compared with other sup-ply and demand factors affecting basic metalsmanufacturing, the impact of direct substitutionof advanced materials for these metals is likelyto be relatively minor. In contrast, more innova-tive application of the materials to new or re-designed products could have substantial impacton manufacturing industries, including develop-ment of more competitive products, and new in-dustries and employment opportunities, as de-scribed below.

Substitution

From the viewpoint of the commercial end userconsidering the introduction of a new materialinto an existing product, the material must per-form at least as well as the existing material, anddo so at a lower cost. This cost is generally cal-culated on the basis of direct substitution of thenew material for the old material in a particularcomponent, without redesign or modification ofsurrounding components. in fact, if substantialredesign is necessary, this is likely to be consid-ered a significant disincentive for the substitution.

Generally, advanced materials cannot competewith conventional materials on a dollars-per-pound substitution basis. Direct substitution ofa ceramic or composite part for a metal part doesnot exploit the superior properties and designflexibility inherent in advanced materials, key ad-vantages which can offset their higher cost. Yetdirect substitution is frequently the only optionconsidered by end users, who are wary of mak-ing too many changes at once. This Catch-22 sit-uation is a major barrier to the use of advancedmaterials in large volume applications. However,commercial end users who wish to exploit thelong-term opportunities offered by advanced ma-terials may fail to achieve their goal unless they

are willing to employ advanced materials moreaggressively in the near term, thereby gaining pro-duction experience.

It is sometimes suggested that substitution ofadvanced materials for steel and aluminum willsoon become a significant factor affecting the de-mand for these metals. OTA’s analysis indicatesthat this is highly unlikely. Because of their lowcost and manufacturability, these metals areideally suited for many of the applications inwhich they are now used, and will not be re-placed by advanced materials. Moreover, thethreat of substitution has led to the developmentof new alloys with improved properties, such ashigh-strength, low-alloy steel and aluminum-Iithium. The availability of these and other newalloys wiII make it even more difficuIt for new,nonmetallic materials to substitute for metals. Asnew materials technologies mature and costscome down, significant displacement of metalscould occur in four markets: aircraft, automo-biles, containers, and construction. However, inthose applications where substitution is substantial,by far the greatest volume of steel and aluminumwill be displaced by relatively low-performance,low-cost materials, such as unreinforced plastics,sheet molding compounds, and high-strengthconcrete.

Innovative Designs and New Products

The automotive industry provides an excellentparadigm for understanding the potential impactof using advanced materials in cost-sensitive man-ufacturing applications. Design teams at the ma-jor automakers are currently evaluating the useof PMCs in primary body structures and chas-sis/suspension systems, as illustrated in figure 1-6.The potential advantages of using PMCs include:weight reduction and resulting fuel economy; im-proved overall quality and consistency in man-ufacturing; lower assembly costs due to parts con-solidation; improved ride performance; productdifferentiation at a reduced cost; lower invest-ment costs for plant, facilities, and tooling; im-proved corrosion resistance; and lower operat-ing costs. These advantages reflect a systems


Figure 1-6.—TypicaI Body Construction AssemblyUsing Two Major PMC Moldings

\SOURCE P. Beardmore, C F Johnson, and G G Strosberg, Ford Motor Co , “Im-

pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries: Case StudyComposite Automobile Structure,” contractor report for OTA, March1987

approach to costs, as described above. However,major challenges remain that will require exten-sive R&D to resolve. These include: lack of high-speed, high-quality, low-cost manufacturing proc-esses; uncertainties regarding performance re-quirements, particularly crash integrity and long-term durability; lack of adequate technologies forrepair and recycling of PMC structures; and un-certain customer acceptance.

There is a growing body of evidence that glassfiber-reinforced composites are capable of meet-ing the functional requirements of the most highlyloaded automotive structures. However, majorinnovations in fabrication technologies are stillrequired. There are several candidate fabricationmethods, including resin transfer molding, com-pression molding, and filament winding. At thistime, none of these methods can satisfy all of theproduction requirements; however, resin trans-fer molding seems the most promising.

Large-scale adoption of PMC automotive struc-tures would have a major impact on the fabrica-tion and assembly of automobiles. For instance,metal forming presses would be replaced by amuch smaller number of molding units, the cur-rent large number of welding machines wouldbe replaced by a limited number of adhesivebonding fixtures, and the assembly sequencewouId be modified to reflect the tremendous re-duction in parts. Factories would be smaller be-cause fewer assembly machines require less floorspace.

The overall labor content of producing a PMCautomobile body would be reduced as numer-ous operations would be eliminated. However,it is important to note that body assembly is nota labor-intensive segment of total assembly. Otherassembly operations that are more labor-intensive(e.g., trim) would not be significantly affected.Thus, the overall decreases in direct labor dueto adoption of PMCs may be relatively small. Thekinds of skills required of factory personnel wouldbe somewhat different, and significant retrainingwould be necessary. However, the overall skilllevels required are likely to be similar to thosein use today.

Extensive use of PMCs by the automotive in-dustry would cause completely new industries toarise, including a comprehensive network of PMCrepair facilities, molding and adhesive bondingequipment suppliers, and a recycling industrybased on new technologies. Current steel vehi-cle recycling techniques will not be applicableto PMCs, and cost-effective recycling technol-ogies for PMCs have yet to be developed. With-out the development of new recycling methods,incineration could become the main disposalprocess for PMC structures. The lack of accept-able recycling and disposal technologies couldtranslate into higher costs for PMC structures rela-tive to metals.

INDUSTRY INVESTMENT CRITERIA FOR ADVANCED MATERIALS

The potential for advanced materials in the investment criteria used by advanced materialsmanufacturing sector will not be realized unless companies vary depending on whether they arecompanies perceive that their criteria for invest- materials suppliers or users; whether the intendedment in R&D and production will be met. The markets are military or commercial; and whether

20 “ Advanced Materials by Design

the end use emphasizes high materials perform-ance or low cost.

Suppliers of advanced structural materials tendto be technology-driven; they are focused primar-ily on the superior technical performance of ad-vanced materials and are looking for both mili-tary and commercial applications. Suppliers tendto take a long-term view, basing investment de-cisions on qualitative assessments of the techni-cal potential of advanced materials. On the otherhand, users of advanced materials tend to bemarket-driven; they are focused primarily onshort-term market requirements, such as returnon investment and time to market.

Frequently, advanced materials suppliers andusers operate in both military and commercialmarkets. However, the investment criteria em-ployed in the two cases are very different. De-fense contractors are able to take a longer termperspective because they are able to chargemuch of their capital equipment to the govern-ment, and because the defense market for thematerials and structures is well-defined. Commer-cial end users, on the other hand, must bear thefull costs of their production investments, andface uncertain returns. Their outlook is thereforenecessarily shorter term. This difference in mar-ket perspective has hampered the transfer of tech-nology from advanced materials suppliers (whofrequently depend on defense contracts to stayin business) to commercial users, and it under-lines the importance of well-defined markets asa motivating force for industry investments in ad-vanced materials.

Cost and Performance

The many applications of advanced structuralmaterials do not all have the same cost and per-formance requirements. Accordingly, the invest-ment criteria of user companies specializing indifferent product areas are different. In general,barriers to investment are highest in cost-sensitiveareas such as construction and automobiles,wherein expensive new materials must competewith cheap, well-established conventional mate-rials. Barriers are lowest for applications in whicha high materials cost is justified by superior per-formance, such as medical implants and aircraft.

Figure 1-7 provides a schematic view of therelative importance placed on high materials per-formance versus cost in a spectrum of industrialend uses. in commercial aircraft, automotive, andconstruction markets, acquisition costs and oper-ating expenses are the major purchase criteria,with progressively less emphasis on high mate-rial performance. In military aerospace and bio-medical markets, functional capabilities and per-formance characteristics are the primary purchasecriteria.

Because advanced materials may cost as muchas 100 times more on a per-pound basis than me-tals such as steel and aluminum, their first usehas generally been in the less cost-sensitive enduses of figure 1-7, particularly in the military.However, because military production runs aretypically small, there is little incentive to developlow-cost, mass production manufacturing proc-esses that would make the materials more attrac-tive for commercial applications such as automo-biles. The lack of such processes is a major barrierpreventing more widespread commercial use ofadvanced structural materials. This suggests thatgreater emphasis on military R&D programs todevelop low-cost fabrication techniques could fa-cilitate the diffusion of military materials technol-ogy into the commercial sector.

The major potential sales value of advancedmaterials lies in the commercial industries in themiddle of figure 1-7; i.e., in aircraft, automobiles,industrial machinery, etc. This is because con-struction materials are used in high volume butmust have a very low cost, and military and bio-medical materials can have high allowable costs,

Figure 1-7.—Relative Importance of Cost andPerformance In Advanced Materials User Industries

IEmphasis

oncost

IiIII

Barriers to the use of advanced materials decrease from upperleft to lower right.SOURCE: Technology Management Associates, “industrial Criteria for invest-

ment Decisions in R&D and Production Facilities,” contractor reportfor OTA, January 1987.


but are used in relatively low volume. However, no market pull on these technologies in theend users in these “middle” industries do not per- United States. This suggests that an important pol-ceive that use of the new materials will be profit- icy tool for accelerating the commercializationable within the next 5 years, the planning hori- of advanced materials is to increase incentiveszon of most companies. Thus, there is virtually for investment by commercial end users.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TRENDS

Advanced structural materials industries havebecome markedly more international in charac-ter in the past several years. In collaboration withindustry, governments around the world are in-vesting large sums in multi-year programs to fa-cilitate commercial development. Through acqui-sitions, joint ventures, and licensing agreements,the firms involved have become increasingly mul-tinational, and are thereby able to obtain accessto growing markets and achieve lower produc-tion costs. Critical technological advances con-tinue to be made outside the United States; e.g.,the carbon fiber technology developed in GreatBritain and Japan, and hot isostatic pressing tech-nology developed in Sweden.

This trend toward internationalization of ad-vanced structural materials technologies hasmany important consequences for governmentand industry policy makers in the United States.They can no longer assume that the United Stateswill dominate the technologies and the resultantapplications. The flow of technology coming intothe United States from abroad may soon be justas significant as that flowing out. Moreover, theincreasingly muItinational character of materialsindustries suggests that the rate of technologyflow among firms and countries is likely to in-crease. The United States will not be able to relyon a superior R&D capability to provide anadvantage in developing commercial products.Furthermore, if there is no existing infrastructurein the United States for quickly appropriating theR&D results for economic development, the re-sults will quickly be used elsewhere.

Ceramics

The value of advanced ceramics consumed inthe United States, and produced in Japan andWestern Europe in 1985 are estimated in table

1-3. (U.S. production data were not available.)In each geographic region, electronic applica-tions, such as capacitors, substrates, and in-

tegrated circuit packages, accounted for over 80percent of the total. Structural applications, in-cluding wear parts and cutting tool inserts, ac-counted for the remainder.

By a margin of nearly 2 to 1, the U.S. ceramicscompanies interviewed by OTA felt that Japan isthe world leader in advanced ceramics R&D.Without question, Japan has been the leader inactually producing advanced ceramic productsfor both industrial and consumer use. Japaneseend users exhibit a commitment to the use ofthese materials not found in the United States.This commitment is reflected in the fact thatalthough the U.S. and Japanese Governmentsspend comparable amounts on ceramics R&D(roughly $100 to$125 million in fiscal year 1985,see table 1-4), estimated spending by Japaneseindustry is about four times that of its government,while in the United States, industry investmentin advanced ceramics R&D (estimated at $153million in fiscal year 1986) is only slightly higherthan government spending. Ceramics technologyhas a high profile in Japan, due in part to pro-duction of advanced ceramic consumer goods,such as fish hooks, pliers, scissors, and ballpointpen tips.

Table l-3.—Estimated Production Value of AdvancedCeramics, 1985 (millions of dollars)

Electronic StructuralRegion applications applications Total

Japan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,920 360 2,280United Statesa . . . . . . . . 1,763 112 1,875Western Europe . . . . . . . 390 80 470aConsumptlon in 1985, according to Business Communications Co., Inc., Nor-

walk, CT.

SOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of AdvancedMaterials,” contractor report for OTA, March 1987.


Table l-4.—Estimated Government Fundingin Several Countries for Advanced Ceramics R&D

in 1985a (millions of dollars)b

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... ... .. .$125Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100West Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5The Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3alncludes funding for electronic and structural applications.blnclides government funding for materials, office expenses (e.g. salaries) and

facilities in research centers, universities, and private industry.clncludes Denmark, Ireland, Norway, and Switzerland.SOURCE: Strategic Analysis, lnc., ’’Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced

Materials,” contractor report for OTA, March 1987.

Japanese ceramics companies are far more ver-tically and horizontally integrated than U.S. corn-panies, a fact that probably enhances their abil-ity to produce higher quality ceramic parts atlower prices. However these companies are stillIosing money on the structural ceramic parts theyproduce. This reflects the long-term view of Jap-anese companies regarding the future of ceramicstechnologies.

The Japanese market for advanced structuralceramics is likely to develop before the U.S. mar-ket. However, given the self-sufficiency of the Jap-anese ceramics industry, this market is likely tobe difficult to penetrate by U.S. suppliers. In con-trast, Japanese ceramics firms, which alreadydominate the world market for electronic ceram-ics, are strongly positioned to exploit the U.S.structural ceramics market as it develops. Onesuch firm, Kyocera, the largest and most highlyintegrated ceramics firm in the world, has alreadyestablished subsidiaries and, recently, an R&Dcenter in the United States.

West Germany, France, and the United King-dom all have initiated substantial programs in ad-vanced ceramics R&D, as indicated in table 1-4.West German companies have a strong positionin powders and finished products, whereasFrance has developed a strong capability inCMCs. Meanwhile, the European Community(EC) has earmarked about $220 million for R&Don advanced materials (including ceramics) be-

tween 1987 and 1991. Overall, industry invest-ment in advanced ceramics in Western Europeis thought to be roughly in the same proportionto government spending as in the United States,i.e., far less than in Japan. Western Europe ap-pears to have all of the necessary ingredients fordeveloping its own structural ceramics industry.


The value of advanced PMC components pro-duced in the United States, Western Europe, andJapan in 1985 was $2.1 billion, divided roughlyas follows: the United States, $1.3 billion; West-ern Europe, $600 million; and Japan, $200 mil-lion. As shown in table 1-5, the U.S. and Europeanmarkets are dominated by aerospace applica-tions. In the United States, PMC development isbeing driven by military and space programs,whereas in Western Europe development is be-ing keyed more heavily to commercial aircraftuse. In contrast, the Japanese market is domi-nated by sporting goods applications.

On the strength of its military aircraft and aero-space programs, the United States leads the worldin advanced PMC technology. Due to the attrac-tiveness of PMCs for new weapons programs, themilitary fraction of the market is likely to increasein the near term. However, this military technol-ogy leadership will not necessarily be translatedinto a strong domestic commercial industry. Dueto the high cost of such military materials andstructures, they find relatively little use in com-mercial applications.

Commercialization of advanced PMCs is anarea in which the United States remains vulner-able to competition from abroad. U.S. suppliers

Table 1-5.—Breakdown of Regional Markets forAdvanced Composites by End Use

End use (percentage)a

Region Aerospace Industrial b Recreational

United States . . . . . 50 25 25Western Europe . . . 56 26 18Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 35 55aBased on the value of fabricated components.blncludes automotive, medical, construction, and non-aerospace military appli-

cations.

SOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of AdvancedMaterials,” contractor report for OTA, March 1987.


of PMC materials report that foreign commercialend users (particularly those outside the aero-space industry) are more active in experimentingwith the new materials than are U.S. commer-cial end users. For example, Europe is consideredto lead the world in composite medical devices.It should be noted, however, that the regulatoryenvironment controlling the use of new materi-als in the human body is currently less restric-tive in Europe than in the United States.

France is by far the dominant force in PMCsin Western Europe, producing more than all otherEuropean countries combined, as shown in ta-ble 1-6. The United Kingdom, West Germany,and Italy make up the balance. The commercialaircraft manufacturer Airbus Industrie, a consor-tium of European companies, is the single largestconsumer of PMCs. At the European Communitylevel, significant expenditures are being made tofacilitate the introduction of PMCs into commer-cial applications through the BRITE and EURAMprograms. In addition, the EUREKA programcalled Carmat 2000 has proposed to spend $60million over 4 years to develop PMC automobilestructures.

In the past few years, the participation of West-ern European companies in the U.S. PMC mar-ket has increased dramatically. This has occurredprimarily through their acquisitions of U.S. com-panies. One result is that they now control 25percent of resins, 20 percent of carbon fibers, and50 percent of prepreg (fibers pre-impregnatedwith polymer resin, the starting point for manyfabrication processes) sales in the United States.These acquisitions appear to reflect their desireto participate more directly in the U.S. defensemarket and to establish a diversified, worldwide

Table l-6.–Distribution of Advanced PMCBusiness in Western Europe, 1986

Country Percent of total

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55%United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15West Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10All other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100%SOURCE Strategic Analys!s Inc , “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced

Materials contractor report for OTA, March 1987

business. A secondary benefit for the Europeancompanies is likely to be a transfer of U.S. PMCtechnology to Europe such that in the future, Eur-ope will be less dependent on the United Statesfor this technology.

Although Japan is the world’s largest producerof carbon fiber, a key ingredient in advancedcomposites, it has been only a minor participantto date in the advanced composites business.One reason for this is that Japan has not devel-oped a domestic aircraft industry, the sector thatcurrently uses the largest quantities of advancedcomposites. Another reason is that Japanese com-panies have been limited by licensing agreementsfrom participating directly in the U.S. market.

Few observers of the composites industry ex-pect this situation to continue. Change couldcome from at least two directions. First, Japanesefiber producers could abrogate existing agree-ments and sell their product directly in the U.S.market. Second, based on technology gainedthrough their increasing involvement in joint ven-tures with Boeing, Japan could launch its owncommercial aircraft industry.


The principal markets for MMC materials in theUnited States and Western Europe are in the de-fense and aerospace sectors. Accordingly, over90 percent of the U.S. funding for MMC R&D be-tween 1979 and 1986 came from DoD. The struc-tures of the U.S. and European MMC industriesare similar, with small, undercapitalized firmssupplying the formulated MMC materials. Cur-rently, the matrix is supplied by the large alumi-num companies, which are considering forwardintegration into composite materials. There arealso in-house efforts at the major aircraft com-panies to develop new composites and new proc-essing methods. Many analysts feel that the inte-gration of the MMC suppliers into larger concernshaving access to more capital and R&D resourceswill be a critical step in producing reliable, low-cost MMCs that could be used in large-volumecommercial applications.

A potential barrier to the commercial use ofMMCs in the United States arises from restrictionsimposed on the flow of information about MMCs

24 . Advanced Materials by Design

for national security reasons. Because MMCs areclassified as a technology of key military impor-tance, exchanges of technical data on MMCs areseverely restricted in the United States and ex-ports of data and material are closely controlled.

Unlike the situation in the United States andWestern Europe, the companies involved in man-ufacturing MMCs in Japan are largely the sameas those involved in supplying PMCs and ceram-ics; i.e., the large, integrated materials compa-

nies. Another difference is that the Japanese MMCsuppliers focus primarily on commercial appli-cations, including electronics, automobiles, andaircraft and aerospace. One noteworthy Japanesedevelopment is Toyota’s introduction of an MMCdiesel engine piston consisting of aluminum lo-cally reinforced with ceramic fibers. This is an im-portant harbinger of the use of MMCs in low-cost,high-volume applications, and it has stirred con-siderable worldwide interest among potentialcommercial users of MMCs.

GOVERNMENT/UNIVERSITY/lNDUSTRY COLLABORATION ANDINDUSTRIAL COMPETITIVENESS

Through the years, the United States has builtup a strong materials science base in its univer-sities and Federal laboratories. Many observersbelieve that U.S. industry, universities, and Fed-eral laboratories need to work together moreeffectively to translate this research base intocompetitive commercial products. Collaborativeprograms offer a number of potential contribu-tions to U.S. industrial competitiveness, includ-ing an excellent environment for training stu-dents, an opportunity to leverage stakeholderR&D investments, and research results that couldlead to new products.

Since the early 1980s, numerous collaborativeR&D centers have been initiated. These centersfollow a variety of institutional models, includ-ing industry consortia, university-based consor-tia such as the National Science Foundation’sEngineering Research Centers, quasi-independentinstitutes (often funded by State governmentsources), and Federal laboratory/industry programs.

In advanced materials technologies, most cur-rent collaborative programs are based at univer-sities or Federal laboratories. OTA’s survey of asample of these programs suggests that such pro-grams are more successful in training studentsand leveraging R&D investments than they arein stimulating commercial outcomes.

The collaborative research programs and theirindustrial participants surveyed by OTA do notrank commercialization as a high priority, and

they do not systematically track commercial out-comes. Many of the university-based programsconcentrate on publishable research and gradu-ate training. Those programs based at Federal fa-cilities are only now beginning to move awayfrom their primary agency missions toward abroader concern with U.S. industrial competitive-ness. Generally, industrial participants value theiraccess to skilled research personnel and graduatestudents more highly than the actual research re-sults generated by the collaboration. This stronglysuggests that such collaborative programs shouldnot be viewed as engines of commercializationand jobs, but rather as a form of infrastructuresupport, providing industry with access to newideas and trained personnel.

Industrial participants often have only a mod-est amount of involvement in the planning andoperation of the collaborative programs. For themost part, they approach their relationship withresearch organizations as being a “window to thefuture.” Furthermore, “collaboration” may be aninaccurate description of many of the programs.In large measure, the programs studied by OTAdid not involve intense, bench-level interactionbetween institutional and industrial scientists;rather, the nature of the collaboration seemedto be mostly symbolic.

There are exceptions to these general obser-vations in some of the newer “hybrid” initiatives,which combine both generic and proprietary re-search in the same program. Often undertaken


in conjunction with State government funding, Rather, they saw the principal barriers as beingthese hybrid organizations seem to incorporate internal corporate problems: how companies cana greater commitment to commercialization and justify major investments in new manufacturingeconomic development as their mission. facilities in light of uncertain markets, how to

For the results of collaborative research to becommercialized, there must be a correspondingcapacity and incentive on the part of the indus-trial participants to do so. Fewer than 50 percentof the industrial participants interviewed reportedany follow-on work stimulated by the collabora-tions. Overwhelmingly, OTA’s industrial respond-ents did not feel that changes in institutional ar-rangements with the research performing centerswould facilitate the commercialization process.

adopt longer term planning horizons, and howto facilitate better communication between theirR&D and manufacturing functions.

Thus, there appears to be a significant gap be-tween the point at which government/univer-sity/industry collaborative materials researchleaves off and the point at which industry is will-ing to begin to explore the commercial poten-tial. Policy options that could help bridge this gapare discussed in the policy section below.

MILITARY ROLE IN ADVANCED MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT

Just as universities and Federal laboratories rep- als is expected to grow rapidly. DoD has com-resent unique resources available to U.S. ad- mitted itself to purchase 80 billion dollars’ worthvanced materials companies, the substantial DoD of weapons systems that will incorporate ad-and NASA investments in advanced materials for vanced composite components.military and space applications can also contrib-

Composites have already been used in theute to the commercial competitiveness of U.S.firms. Army’s Apache and Black Hawk helicopters,

Navy aircraft such as the AV-8B, the F-18, andAt present, the military establishment is one of the F-14, and the Air Force’s F-1 5 and F-16. PMCs

the largest customers of advanced materials, es- are currently in full-scale development for thepecially composites, and its use of these materi- Navy’s V-22 Osprey, and are under considera-

Photo credit: McDonnell Douglas

The Navy AV-8B Aircraft.


tion for several systems including the Army’s LHXhelicopters and the Air Force’s Advanced Tacti-cal Fighter. Ceramics and composites of variouskinds will also be enabling technologies in suchnew programs as the National Aerospace Plane(NASP) and the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).

Counting only basic and early applied R&D(budget categories 6.1-6.3A), DoD sponsorsabout 60 percent ($98 million of a total of $167million in fiscal year 1987) of Federal advancedstructural materials R&D in the United States, asshown in table 1-7. If military development, test-ing, and evaluation funds (as well as funds forclassified programs) were included, this fractionwould be much higher. Military research in ad-vanced structural materials has aimed at achiev-ing such goals as higher operating temperatures,higher toughness, lower radar observability, andreduced weight.

Today, it is clear that U.S. leadership in ad-vanced composites technologies of all types stemsfrom the substantial DoD and NASA investmentsin these materials over the past 25 years. U.S.companies have been able to leverage their re-sources by using DoD funds for R&D in thesetechnologies. There are some areas of strongoverlap between military and commercial sec-

tors. These include basic research in materialssynthesis, properties, and behavior, as well as cer-tain applications, such as aircraft, in which themilitary and commercial performance require-ments are similar. DoD has also instituted pro-grams such as the Manufacturing Technologies(ManTech) program to develop low-cost manu-facturing methods, a critical need for both mili-tary and commercial structures.

As a principal supporter of advanced materi-als R&D, the military has two primary policy goalsrelating to the technologies. The first is to pre-vent or slow their diffusion to Eastern bloc coun-tries, and the second is to secure viable domesticsources of supply. In an era of rapid technologydiffusion across national borders and the grow-ing multinational character of advanced materi-als industries, these policy goals are increasinglyin conflict with commercial interests. Major issuesthat will require resolution include export con-trols, controls on technical information, and gov-ernment procurement practices.

As commercial markets for these materials con-tinue to grow, effective balancing of military andcommercial interests in advanced materials couldbecome a critical factor in U.S. companies’ com-petitiveness in these technologies.

Table 1-7.—U.S. Government Agency Funding for Advanced Structural Materials in Fiscal Year 1987(millions of dollars)

Ceramics andceramic matrix Polymer matrix Metal matrix Carbon/carbon

Agency composites composites composites composites Total

Department of Defensea. . . . . . . . . . . $21.5 $33.8 $29.7 $13.2 $98.2Department of Energy. . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.0 — — 36.0National Aeronautics and

—

Space Administration . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0 5.0 5.6 2.1 19.7National Science Foundation . . . . . . 3.7 3.0 — 6.7National Bureau of Standards . . . . . .

—3.0 0.5 1.0 4.5

Bureau of Mines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .—

2.0 — — — 2.0Department of Transportation . . . . . . — 0.2 — — 0.2

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $73.2 $42.5 $36.3 $15.3 $167.3alncludes only budget categories 6.1-6.3A.

SOURCE: OTA survey of agency representatives.

POLICY ISSUES

Perhaps the central finding of this assessmentis that potential commercial end users of ad-vanced materials, whose investment decisions are

AND OPTIONS

determined by expected profits, do not believethat use of advanced materials will be profitablewithin their planning horizon of 5 years. Thus,


there is virtually no market pull on these tech-nologies in the United States. While U.S. com-mercial end users have placed themselves in arelatively passive, or reactive role with respectto use of advanced materials, their competitors,notably the Japanese, have adopted a more ag-gressive, “technology push” strategy.

Ultimately, the future competitiveness of U.S.advanced materials industries in worldwide com-mercial markets depends on the investment de-cisions made within the industries themselves.These decisions are strongly affected by a vari-ety of Federal policies and regulations.

It is useful to begin the policy discussion byconsidering what outcomes are likely if currenttrends continue.

Projections Based on a Continuationof the Status Quo

Because U.S. military markets will expand fasterthan commercial markets in the near term, themilitary role in determining the developmentagenda for advanced materials is likely to broaden.As explained above, military investments in ad-vanced materials can be an asset to U.S. firms;however, they could also tend to direct resourcestoward development of high-performance, high-cost materials that are inappropriate for commer-cial applications.

Meanwhile, the reluctance of U.S. commercialend users to commit to advanced materials sug-gests that foreign firms will have an advantagein exploiting global markets as they develop.Almost certainly, a successful product using anadvanced material produced abroad would stim-ulate a flurry of R&D activity among U.S. com-panies. However, given the lack of experiencein this country with low-cost, high-volume fabri-cation technologies, it is not obvious that theUnited States could easily catch up.

The high cost of R&D, scale-up, and produc-tion of advanced materials, together with thepoor near-term commercial prospects, will drivemore and more U.S. companies to pool resourcesand spread risks through a variety of joint ventures,consortia, and collaborative research centers.

Currently, many such collaborative centers arespringing up across the United States. Thesecenters will provide an excellent environment forconducting generic research and training of stu-dents. However, because of the high risks in-volved, they will not necessarily lead to more ag-gressive commercialization of advanced materialsby participating companies.

Through acquisitions, joint ventures, and li-censing agreements, the advanced materials in-dustries will continue to become more multina-tional in character. Technology will flow rapidlybetween firms and across national borders. Crit-ical advances will continue to come from abroad,and the flow of materials technology into thiscountry will become as important as that flow-ing out. U.S. efforts to regulate these flows fornational security reasons will meet increasing re-sistance from multinational companies intent onachieving the lowest production costs and freeaccess to markets.

These scenarios suggest that there is reason todoubt whether the United States will be a worldleader in manufacturing with advanced materi-als in the 1990s and beyond. The commerciali-zation of these materials is essentially blocked be-cause they do not meet the cost and performancerequirements of potential end users. OTA findsthat there are four general Federal policy objec-tives that could help to reduce these barriers:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Encourage long-term investment by ad-vanced materials end users;Facilitate government/u niversity/industrycollaboration in R&D for low-cost materialsfabrication processes;Facilitate more effective commercial exploi-tation of military R&D investments wherepossible; andBuild a strong advanced materials technol-ogy infrastructure.

Policy options for pursuing these objectivesrange from those with a broad scope, affectingmany technologies, to those specifically affect-ing advanced materials. These options are notmutually exclusive, and most could be adoptedwithout internal contradiction.


Encourage Long-Term Investment byAdvanced Materials End Users

Greater investment in advanced materials bypotential end users would generate more mar-ket pull on these technologies in the UnitedStates. The shortfall of long-term investment inadvanced materials by potential end user com-panies is only one example of a more widespreadshortfall found in many U.S. industries.

The climate for long-term industry investmentis strongly affected by Federal policies and regu-lations, including tax policy, intellectual propertylaw, tort law, and environmental regulations.Public debate regarding the relationships be-tween these Federal policies and regulations andU.S. industrial competitiveness has given rise toa voluminous literature. Suggested policy changesinclude: providing tax incentives for long-termcapital investments, reducing taxation on per-sonal savings in order to make more investmentcapital available and thus reduce its cost, andcomprehensive tort law reform aimed at makingproduct liability costs proportional to provennegligence.

These policy options have implications far be-yond advanced materials technologies, and ananalysis of their effects is beyond the scope ofthis assessment.

Facilitate Government/University/Industry Collaboration in R&D for

Low-Cost Materials FabricationProcesses

More than any other single barrier, the lack ofreliable, low-cost fabrication processes inhibitsthe use of advanced structural materials in com-mercial applications. Due to the high costs of de-veloping these processes, it is a fruitful area forcollaborative research. Three major reservoirs ofmaterials expertise are available to United Statescompanies: 1 ) universities, 2) Federal labora-tories, and 3) small high-technology firms.

Option 1: Establish a limited number of collabora-tive centers dedicated to advanced materialsmanufacturing technology.

Creation of a small number of collaborativecenters in which manufacturing research andscale-up costs would be shared by government,university, and industry stakeholders, could in-crease industry incentives to invest in commer-cialization. These centers need not be new; theycouId be based at existing centers of excellence.

Option 2: Encourage large companies to workwith small advanced materials firms, whichhave materials fabrication expertise, but lackthe capital to explore its commercial potential.

Small advanced materials companies representa technology resource that could make largematerials supplier and user companies morecompetitive in the future. Whether through ac-quisitions, joint ventures or other financial ar-rangements, relationships with small materialscompanies can provide large companies with ac-cess to technologies that have commercial prom-ise, but that are too risky for the large companyto develop in-house. Expanding the Small Busi-ness Innovation Research (SBIR) program is oneoption for cultivating this resource.

Facilitate More Effective CommercialExploitation of Military R&DInvestments Where Possible

Military policy will continue to have a majorimpact on the domestic advanced materials in-dustry. More effective exploitation of the militaryinvestment for commercial purposes, while pro-tecting national security concerns, could lead tosignificant competitive advantages for U.S. firmsinvolved in these technologies.

Export Controls

Early in 1987, the Department of Commerceproposed several changes in the administrationof export controls intended to alleviate their im-pact on U.S. high-technology trade. Among theseare proposals to remove technologies that havebecome available from many foreign sourcesfrom the control lists, and to reduce the reviewperiod for export license applications. Thesechanges could be helpful, but some further stepsshould be considered.

Ch. 1—Executive Summary “ 29

Option 1: increase representation by nondefensematerials industries in policy planning for ex-port controls.

Currently, advice for making export control pol-icy decisions comes primarily from defenseagency personnel and defense contractors. Toachieve a better balance between military andcommercial concerns, greater non-defense indus-try participation in this process is desirable. Anindustry advisory group such as the MaterialsTechnology Advisory Council at the Departmentof Commerce could provide this perspective.

Option 2: Eliminate or loosen reexport controls.

The United States is currently the only nationthat imposes controls on the reexport by othercountries of products containing U.S.-made ma-terials or components. Many countries view U.S.reexport controls as unwarranted interference intheir political and commercial affairs, and this hasled to a process of “de-Americanization” inwhich foreign companies avoid the use of U. S.-made materials and components. One optionwouId be to eliminate the U.S. reexport restric-tions entirely, while encouraging foreign tradingpartner nations to develop and maintain theirown export controls for these products.

Option 3: Streamline and coordinate the variousexport control lists.

All of the various lists under which technologiesare controlled should receive careful review forcorrectness and current relevance. These listscould also be coordinated more effectively. Forexample, the Departments of Commerce andState have overlapping legal and regulatory au-thority to control the export of MMC technology.The present system is extremely confusing to U.S.companies, which have experienced long delaysin obtaining approval for export licenses. One op-tion would be to have a single agency regulateboth the export of MMC materials and technicaldata related to them.

Information ControlsTechnical information about advanced mate-

rials is controlled under a complex regime of lawsand regulations administered by the Departmentsof State, Commerce, and Defense. Currently, dis-

semination of advanced materials technical in-formation can be controlled by: InternationalTraffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) of the Depart-ment of State; the dual-use technology restrictionsof the Department of Commerce; the DefenseAuthorization Act of 1984; government contractrestrictions; and Federal document classificationsystems. There are so many ways to restrict in-formation that actual implementation of restric-tions can appear arbitrary. Under some of theselaws, regulations, and clauses, one can file fora license to export, and under others, there is nomechanism to permit export of the information.These controls have led to disruption of scien-tific meetings and to restriction of some advancedmaterials conference sessions to “U.S. only” par-ticipation.

Option 1: Simplify and clarify the various infor-mation restriction mechanisms.

Excessive restrictions on information flow caninhibit technology development and preventtechnology transfer between the military andcommercial sectors. Relying more on classifica-tion and less on the other more tenuous mecha-nisms of control (such as the Defense Authori-zation Act or contract clauses), could clarify someof the confusion.

Option 2: Make military materials databases moreavailable to U.S. firms.

The most comprehensive and up-to-date infor-mation on advanced materials is now availableonly to government contractors through the De-fense Technical Information Center (DTIC). DTICcontains a significant amount of information thatis neither classified nor proprietary, but is stilllimited to registered users. Such informationcould be of value to U.S. commercial firms thatare not government contractors.

Military Research inManufacturing Technologies

Although military applications for advancedmaterials can generally tolerate higher costs formaterials and processes than commercial appli-cations, both could benefit greatly from researchon low-cost processing methods. The desire toreduce procurement costs led DoD to implement


its ManTech program, which includes projectsdevoted to development of many different ma-terials and manufacturing technologies.

Option: Increase support for advanced materi-als manufacturing research through the Man-Tech program.

Development of low-cost manufacturing tech-nologies would not only reduce military procure-ment costs, but could also hasten the commer-cial use of advanced materials technologiesdeveloped for the military, One mechanism toachieve this would be to augment the ManTechbudget for those programs aimed at decreasingproduction costs and increasing reproducibilityand reliability of advanced materials structures.

Procurement Practices

DoD constitutes a special market with uniquematerials requirements. However, like other cus-tomers, DoD seeks the widest variety of materi-als available at the lowest possible cost. It there-fore employs regulatory means to simulate theconditions of commercial markets. This makesthe participation by materials suppliers extremelydependent on defense regulations and policies,rather than on conventional economic criteria.Through its policies on dual sourcing, materialsqualification, and domestic sourcing of advancedmaterials, DoD has a profound influence on thecost and availability of a variety of high-perform-ance materials and technologies.

Option: Provide a clear plan for implementinglegislation aimed at establishing domesticsources of advanced materials technology.

Uncertainties about how recent domesticsourcing legislation (particularly that relating toprocurement of polyacrylonitrile (PAN) -basedcarbon fibers) will be implemented have causedmuch concern in the advanced composites com-munity. In order to make intelligent investmentdecisions, U.S. carbon fiber suppliers will requirea clear DoD pIan including information on quan-tities to be purchased and the specific weaponssystems involved.

Offsets

Offsets are a foreign policy-related marketingarrangement in which the foreign buyer of air-

craft or other high-technology systems receivesmaterials production technology from the U.S.system supplier as part of the sale. This can leadto a production capability abroad that is detri-mental to the U.S. advanced materials technol-ogy base. Technology offsets are commonly re-quired by foreign governments before bids fromU.S. (or other) systems suppliers will be consid-ered. In recent years, little attention has been paidto the effects of offsets.

Option: Initiate a thorough study on the effectsof offsets on the competitiveness of U.S. ad-vanced materials industries.

Build a Strong Advanced MaterialsTechnology Infrastructure

For U.S. advanced materials suppliers and usersto exploit technological developments rapidly,whether they originate in the United States orabroad, an infrastructure must be built up to re-duce barriers to their use. In this context, a tech-nology infrastructure encompasses the availabilityof basic scientific knowledge, technical data tosupport design and fabrication, and an adequatesupply of trained personnel.

Option 1: Increase R&D funding levels to reducethe costs of advanced materials and improvetheir performance.

The development of low-cost fabrication proc-esses that are capable of making large numbersof structures with reproducible properties is ofprimary importance.

Option 2: Develop a comprehensive and up-to-date database of collaborative R&D efforts inadvanced materials at the Federal, regional,and State levels, including program goals andfunding.

In recent years, a large number of researchcenters of excellence in advanced materials havesprung up with the aid of government fundingat Federal, regional, and State levels. Althoughthere are advantages to such a decentralized ap-proach, the resulting dispersion of talent and re-sources also could preclude the formation of a“critical mass” necessary to solve the remainingtechnical and economic problems. Such a data-

Ch. l—Executive Summary ● 3 1

base would be an essential first step in bringinggreater coordination to these efforts.

Option 3: Gather comprehensive information oncurrent activities in government-funded R&Don advanced structural materials.

One persistent need identified by many indus-try sources is a central source of information ongovernment projects in advanced materials. Ingeneral, this information does exist, but it is rarelyin a form that is readily accessible to research-ers. An oversight organization such as the Na-tional Critical Materials Council could help togather and disseminate such information.

Option 4: Establish a mechanism for gatheringbusiness performance statistics on advancedmaterials industries.

It is difficult to evaluate the business trends ofU.S. advanced materials industries because thestatistics are aggregated with those of traditionalmaterials industries. One alternative for correct-ing this situation would be to create separateStandard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes foradvanced ceramics and composites so that sta-tistics on production, imports, and exports canbe systematically tracked.

Option 5: Step up person-to-person efforts togather and disseminate data on internationaldevelopments in advanced materials.

As several competitor countries around theworld approach and exceed U.S. capabilities inadvanced materials, it becomes imperative forU.S. companies to have prompt and reliable ac-cess to these overseas developments. Rather thanengage in massive translation of technical pub-lications, which may compete with private sec-tor efforts, the best Federal approach may be toprovide increased funding for U.S. scientists tovisit laboratories abroad, encourage them to pub-

lish accounts of their experiences, and to dissem-inate this information to U.S. industry.

Option 6: Increase support for the developmentof standards for advanced materials.

It is very difficult to set standards in a field suchas advanced materials in which technologies areevolving rapidly. However, timely developmentof standard test methods, production quality con-trol standards, and product specification stand-ards would greatly facilitate the manufacture ofhigh-quality products at a lower cost. Several gov-ernment and private sector organizations havebegun to address this problem, but progress hasbeen slow. Particularly important may be greaterFederal support of efforts to establish internationalstandards. If the United States fails to agree onstandards or is forced to accept standards devel-oped abroad, this could become a significantcompetitive disadvantage for U.S. companies.

Option 7: Increase the pool of trained materialsscientists and engineers by providing increasedfunding for multidisciplinary university pro-grams in advanced structural materials, and byproviding retraining opportunities for techni-cal personnel in the field.

Advanced materials industry sources contactedby OTA were nearly unanimous in their recom-mendation that more trained personnel areneeded. Because materials science cuts acrossmany traditional academic disciplines, multidis-ciplinary materials programs for students will bevery important. Another important source ofmanpower will be retraining of designers andmanufacturing engineers in the field who are un-familiar with the new materials. Small businesses,professional societies, universities, and Federallaboratories could all play a role in providing suchretraining services.

TWO VIEWS OF ADVANCED MATERIALS POLICIES

Congress and the Reagan Administration have materials technology development, or whetheradopted conflicting views of policymaking with goals and priorities should be established in a de-respect to advanced materials. The crux of the centralized fashion by the principal funding agen-conflict is whether the Federal Government cies according to their various missions.shouId establish a high-level plan for advanced


The United States has long had a decentralizedapproach to advanced materials policy. To a greatextent, the major agencies that engage in mate-rials R&D (DoD, DOE, NASA, and NSF) sponsorprojects in the context of their distinct missions.

In the congressional view, the growing techno-logical capabilities of the United States’ compet-itors have underscored the urgency of a nation-ally coordinated approach to advanced materialsR&D. This view is expressed in the National Crit-ical Materials Act of 1984, in which Congressestablished the National Critical Materials Council(NCMC) in the Executive Office of the President.The NCMC is charged with the responsibility ofworking with the principal funding agencies andthe Office of Management and Budget to definenational priorities for materials R&D, and to co-ordinate the various agency efforts. Advocates ofa national materials policy point to the apparentcapacity of Japan to identify key technologies forthe future and pursue their development bymeans of a coordinated, government/industry ef-fort. Advanced ceramics have been a high-visi-bility example.

In the Administration’s view, it is not appro-priate for the government to engage in advancedmaterials planning; this is viewed as putting thegovernment in a position of “picking winners”-which, according to current thinking, is best leftto the private sector. Because different agencieshave different missions and requirements for ma-terials, determination of R&D priorities is bestmade at the agency level. Administration criticsof the national materials policy concept maintainthat attempts to make materials policy above theagency level risk the worst aspects of Japanesepolicies, the overbearing bureaucracy, withoutachieving the best effect, the commitment andcoordination of industry. In their view, the con-gressionally mandated NCMC is redundant withexisting interagency committees.

While the Reagan Administration has resistedthe concept of strategic advanced materials plan-ning for commercial competitiveness, it has em-braced it with regard to national defense needs.DoD is currently preparing a comprehensive pol-icy initiative aimed at preserving the U.S. defenseindustrial base. This initiative will target a port-

folio of technologies, including machine tools,bearings, castings, semiconductors, and advancedcomposites, for support. Issues such as techno-logical obsolescence, availability of trained per-sonnel, foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies,international cooperation, and government/uni-versity/industry collaboration are being ad-dressed.

A national approach to a materials program hasseveral potential advantages. It can provide a fo-cus for the efforts of individual agencies and col-laborative government/industry projects. It canprovide a continuity of funding in a given areaas fashionable R&D areas change from year toyear. Finally, it can provide a rationale for com-mitting large amounts of resources for expensivemanufacturing development and demonstrationprograms. To be successful, such a national pro-gram should not be a “top-down” approach, butshould be structured with consultation and par-ticipation of the university, Federal laboratory,and industry community which will ultimately im-plement it.

Such a national approach also has disadvan-tages. It may focus on the wrong materials, andbe too inflexible to capitalize on new opportu-nities that arise. It may tie up resources and man-power in long-term programs that are better in-vested elsewhere. Finally, because it cannotaddress the cost and performance requirementsof materials in actual commercial markets, it mayfail to produce materials or processes that areeconomically attractive to end users.

The debate surrounding national materials pol-icy has suffered from the lack of a clear defini-tion of what such a policy would entail. Whereaspolicy goals such as conservation of scarce ma-terials or reliable access to strategic minerals areeasily understood in the context of conventionalmaterials, it is much more difficuIt to define na-tional goals for advanced materials. To succeedin its task, the NCMC will need to establish amore precise definition of these goals, and to de-velop high-level Administration commitment tothe concept of a national materials policy.

Pending the resolution of differences betweenCongress and the Administration regarding the


role of the NCMC, there are three further func-tions that the NCMC could perform:

● Serve as a point of contact to receive andmonitor industry concerns relating to ad-vanced materials

An organization such as the NCMC could pro-vide a forum for interaction between industry andthe Federal Government on issues relating to ad-vanced materials, particularly those that tran-scend the purview of any particular Federalagency. This could promote better mutual under-standing of industry and government perspectiveson advanced materials development, and couldeventually lead to the development of a con-sensus on promising future directions.

● Serve as an information source and a refer-ral center regarding advanced materials

U.S. advanced materials programs and exper-tise are widely dispersed throughout various

agencies and laboratories. There is currently nodefinitive source of information that can providean overview of ongoing efforts. An organizationsuch as the NCMC could gather this informationfrom the relevant agencies, analyze it, and dis-seminate it.

● Serve as a broker for resolving conflicts be-tween military and commercial agency goalsfor advanced materials

There are materials issues that transcend indi-vidual agencies and that could be resolved by anorganization above the agency level. For in-stance, the export control responsibility for reg-ulating advanced materials and information re-lating to them is currently spread over theDepartments of Commerce, State, and Defense,a situation that is very confusing to industry. Anorganization such as the NCMC could work withthe National Security Council to help simplify andclarify the various agencies’ responsibilities.

ADVANCED MATERIALS POLICIES IN A BROADER CONTEXT

Ceramic and composite structural materialsclearly represent great potential opportunities forthe U.S. economy. However, advanced materi-als are not unique in their importance to the futurecompetitiveness of U.S. manufacturing industries.Other technologies, including microelectronics,computers, robotics, and biotechnology will alsobe important. These technologies face similar

competitive challenges, and many of the policyobjectives and options discussed above couldbenefit all of them. As such, it may be mostappropriate to address the commercialization ofadvanced materials technologies as part of abroader policy package aimed at achievinggreater investment and productivity in the man-ufacturing sector as a whole.

.—.

●

Chapter 2

Ceramics

.

. . , .

, - .

* . .

. .

. . .

, CONTENTS

Page fFindings . ● . , ● . ● . ● . . . . ● . , . . , . . 3 7 2-3. Projected U.S. Markets for Structural

> * * * * * . * . * * * * * . * * * . . . . . . . * . * . * 38 Ceramics in the Year 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2-4. Load-Deflection Curve for a Nicalon Fiber-Ceramic Matrix Composites ●☛ ● ● .., . . . ● 4 0 Reinforced Silicon Nitride Composite. . . . .

Ceramic Coatings . ● . ● . . . . ● . . . ● .,. ● . . . . . 4?Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42“

2-1. Some Future Applications of StructuralCeramics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...?, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2. Comparison of Physical and MechanicalProperties of Common Structural Ceramics . . ● ● . . . . , . . .with Steel and Aluminum Alloys . . . . . . .

● ● * ’ * . * * . . . . , ● , ● . .l Ceramics . . . . . . . . . . 50 2-3. Fracture Toughness and Critical Flaw

, Size of Monolithic and Composite Ceramic* * * . * * * * * * * ...**.... 50s.. . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . 52 Materials Compared with Metals . . . . . . .

Far-Term Applications....,,,...,.,... .., 5 2 2-4 Common Processing Operations for

, *need Stuctural Advanced Ceramics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-5. Selected Processes for the Production of- - -%. .., ,+ ..,..,6,”,.....,,...,,. 52

,::; , Ceramic Coatings and for the Modification~ ns and Production . . . . . . . 64: : ● ‘ . . . . ● “ , ● .. ..+, . 64 of Ceramic Surfaces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

compodtw . . . ● . ● . . . . ● * . . 64 2-6. Characteristics and Properties of Ceramic

‘j; I%& @r Ceramics ....., . . . . . . . . 6!5 Coatings Often Considered Desirable. . . .

65 2-7. Comparison of the Mechanical Properties. . . . * . * * . * . .,, . . . . . . . . . . .I%04Wion of Various Cements and Aluminum . . . . ., ‘ .;+ . * * * * . ., * . . . . .***,*... 66

‘“.i~amh’md 04weloprmmt Priorities . . . . . . . . 66 2-8. Comparison of Some Possible Production-

;; VW knpottant. . . . . . : . . . . . e . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Level NDE Techniques for Structural7-

‘ ~ wnpO&Rt ● 68 Ceramics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .* * . ., . ., + * . . . . . .,, * .,, ***..*.w .,, H* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 2-9. Future Diesel Engine Technology

. Development Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.,. ,.. .’2-10. Structural Ceramic Technology: Federal‘ , -. ‘. . . Figures Government Funded R&D. . . . . . . . . . . . .

F i g u r e N o . Page 2-11. Breakout of the Fiscal Year 1985 Structural. .2-1. ~--Faikm? of a Ceramic Ceramics Budget According to the R&D “ .*** **6 * S , ” ”,, . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Priorities Cited in the Text . . . . . . . . . . . .

2-2. 2-Z for of

C e r a m i c C o m p o n e n t s in Structural. Application Categories . . ● . ● . . . ● . ● 51

. ._.” .

.

.

- . .

.’ .

‘age

53

65

Page

38

39

41

43

46,

47

48

50

60

67

70

Chapter 2

Ceramics

FINDINGS

The broad class of materials known as ceram-ics includes all solids that are neither metallic nororganic. Advanced structural ceramics differ fromconventional ceramic consumer goods in thatthey are made from extremely pure, microscopicpowders that are consolidated at high tempera-tures to yield a dense, durable structure. Com-pared with metals, advanced structural ceramicshave superior wear resistance, high-temperaturestrength, and chemical stability. They generallyhave lower electrical and thermal conductivity,and lower toughness. The low toughness of ce-ramics (brittleness) causes them to fail suddenlywhen the applied stress is sufficient to propagatecracks that originate at flaws in the material. Theactual stress level at which this occurs can be veryhigh if the flaw sizes are small. However, unpre-dictable failure caused by poor control over flawpopulations remains a major handicap to the useof structural ceramics in load-bearing applications.

There are several methods that can reduce thesensitivity of ceramics to flaws. Incorporation ofceramic particulate, whiskers, or continuousfibers in a ceramic matrix can produce a com-posite that absorbs more energy during fracturethan the matrix alone, and is therefore tougher.A different approach is the application of a thinceramic coating to a metal substrate. This yieldsa component with the surface properties of a ce-ramic combined with the high toughness of metalin the bulk.

Advanced ceramic components are more ex-pensive than the metal components they wouldreplace. This is primarily due to the high cost ofprocesses that are capable of fabricating ceram-ics reliably and reproducibly. Finishing and machin-ing operations to form the part to its final shapeare expensive due to the extreme hardness of thetnaterial. Nondestructive testing to ensure relia-bility is also a major component of productioncosts. Therefore, development of processes thatcan reliably fabricate a component to final netshape is crucial, In many applications, thin coat-

ings of a high-performance ceramic on a metalsubstrate may offer the best compromise betweencost and performance.

Applications and MarketOpportunities

Advanced structural ceramics are in produc-tion for wear parts, cutting tools, bearings, filters,and coatings. Ceramics are also in limited pro-duction (in Japan) in discrete engine componentssuch as turbocharger rotors, glow plugs, and pre-combustion chambers. Current military applica-tions in the United States include radomes, ar-mor, and infrared windows.

Near-term production (next 10 to 15 years) isexpected in advanced bearings, bioceramics,construction applications, heat exchangers, elec-trochemical devices, discrete components in au-tomobile engines, and military engines. Especiallyhigh growth may be seen in bioceramics for den-tal and orthopedic implants, and chemicallybonded ceramics for construction applications.

Far-term applications (beyond 15 years) arethose that require solution of major technical andeconomic problems. These include an advancedautomotive turbine engine, an advanced ceramicdiesel (although ceramics could be used in mili-tary versions of these engines at an earlier date),some electrochemical devices, military compo-nents, and heat exchangers. A variety of otherturbine engines, especially turbines for aircraftpropulsion and for utility-scale power generation,should also be categorized as far-term.


The following hierarchy of R&D priorities isbased on the technical barriers that must be over-come before ceramics can be used in the appli-cations discussed above.

37


Processing Science

This is the key to understanding how process-ing variables such as temperature, composition,and particle size distribution are connected to thedesired final properties of the ceramic.

Environmental Behavior

In many applications, ceramics are required towithstand high-temperature, corrosive, or erosiveenvironments. Information on the behavior of ce-ramics in these environments is essential to pre-dict the service life of ceramics in those appli-cations.

Reliability

The reliability of advanced ceramics and ce-ramic composites is the single most important de-terminant of success in any application. Progressrequires advances in design of brittle materials,process control, nondestructive evaluation, un-derstanding crack growth processes, and lifeprediction.

Ceramic Composites

These novel materials offer an exciting oppor-tunity to increase the strength and toughness ofceramics.

INTRODUCTION

Ceramics are nonmetallic, inorganic solids. Byfar the most common of terrestrial materials,ceramics made of sand and clay have been usedfor many thousands of years for brick, pottery,and artware. However, modern structural ceram-ics bear little resemblance to these traditional ma-terials; they are made from extremely pure,microscopic powders that are consolidated athigh temperatures to yield a dense and durablestructure.

The U.S. market for advanced structural ceram-ics in 1987 was $171 million. ’ In the next 10 to15 years, however, the market opportunities forstructural ceramics are expected to expand rap-idly (table 2-1 ) such that by the year 2000, theU.S. market alone is projected to be between $1billion and $5 billion per year.2

Properties of Ceramics

The properties of some common structural ce-ramics are compared with those of metals in ta-ble 2-2. In general, ceramics have superior high-temperature strength, higher hardness, lowerdensity, and lower thermal conductivity than me-tals. The principal disadvantage of using ceram-

‘Up from $112 million in 1985, according to data supplied byBusiness Communications Co., Inc. of Norwalk, CT. This includeswear parts, cutting tools, heat exchangers, engine components,bioceramics, and aerospace applications.

2Greg Fischer, “Strategies Emerge for Advanced Ceramic Busi-ness,” American Ceramic Society Bulletin 65(1):39, 1986.

ics as structural materials is the sensitivity of theirstrength to extremely small flaws, such as cracks,voids, and inclusions. Flaws as small as 10 to 50micrometers can reduce the strength of a ceramicstructure to a few percent of its theoreticalstrength. Because of their small sizes, the strength-controlling flaws are usually very difficult to de-tect and eliminate.

The flaw sensitivity of ceramics illustrates theimportance of carefully controlled processing andfinishing operations for ceramic components.However, even with the most painstaking efforts,a statistical distribution of flaws of various sizes

Table 2-1.—Some Future Applications ofStructural Ceramics

Application Performance advantages Examples

Wear partssealsbearingsvalvesnozzles

Cutting toolsHeat engines

diesel componentsgas turbines

Medical implantshipsteethjoints

Constructionhighwaysbridgesbuildings

High hardness, low friction

High strength, hot hardnessThermal insulation, high

temperature strength, fueleconomy

Biocompatibility, surfacebond to tissue, corrosionresistance

Improved durability, loweroverall cost

Silicon carbide,alumina

Silicon nitrideZirconia, silicon

carbide, sili-con nitride

Hydroxylapatite,bioglass,alumina,zirconia

Advanced ce-ments andconcretes

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1988

Ch. 2—Ceramics “ 39

Table 2-2.—Comparison of Physical and Mechanical Properties of Common Structural Ceramics WithSteel and Aluminum Alloys. SiC: silicon carbide; Si3N4: silicon nitride; ZrO2: zirconia

Strength aThermal

Density a Room temperature at 1,095° C Hardness b conductivityMaterial (g/cm3) strength (MPa) (M Pa) (kg/mm2) 25°/1,100° (W/m° C)

Various sintered SiC materials . . . . 3.2 340-550 (flexure) 340-550 (flexure) 2,500-2,790 85/175Various sintered Si3N 4 materials . . 2.7-3.2 205-690 (flexure) 205-690 (flexure) 2,000C 17/60Transformation toughened ZrO2 . . . 5.8 500-1,250 (flexure)c — 1,300-1,635C 1.713.5Steels (4100, 4300, 8600, and

5600 series) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8 1,035-1,380 (tensile yield) useless 450-650 43Aluminum alloy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 415-895 (tensile yield) useless 100-500 140-225NOTE: 1 MPa = 145 psi = 0.102 Kg/mm2.SOURCES: aR. Nathan Katz, “Applications of High Performance Ceramics in Heat Engine Design,” Materials Science and Engineering 71:227-249, 1985.

bElalne P. Rothman, “Ultimate Properties of Ceramics and Ceramic Matrix Composites,”C"Ceramic Application and Design,”

contractor report for OTA, December 1985.Ceramic Industry, February 1988, pp. 29-50.

and locations will always exist in any ceramicstructure. Even identically prepared ceramic speci-mens will display a distribution of strengths, ratherthan a single value. Design with ceramics, un-like design with metals, is therefore a statisticalprocess, rather than a deterministic process.

Ceramic failure probability is illustrated in fig-ure 2-1. The curve on the right in figure 2-1a rep-resents the distribution of strengths in a batch ofidentically prepared ceramic components. Thecurve on the left is the distribution of stresses thatthese components are subjected to in service.The overlap between the two curves, in whichthe stress in service exceeds the strength of theceramic, determines the probability that the partwill fail.

There are several ways to reduce the probabil-ity of failure of the ceramic. One is to shift thestrength distribution curve to the right by elimi-nation of the larger flaws, as shown in figure 2-1 b. A second way is to use nondestructive testingor proof testing to weed out those componentswith major flaws. This leads to a truncation of thestrength distribution, as shown in figure 2-1c.Proof testing of each individual component, al-though widely used in the industry today, is ex-pensive and can introduce flaws in the materialthat were not there originally.

A third way to reduce failure probability is todesign the microstructure of the ceramic so thatit has some resistance to fracture (increased tough-ness), and hence, some tolerance to defects.Toughness is a measure of the energy requiredto fracture a material in the presence of flaws.For a ceramic component under stress, the tough-

ness determines the critical flaw size that will leadto catastrophic failure at that stress. In fact, thecritical flaw size increases with the square of thetoughness parameter; thus, an increase in the ma-terial toughness of a factor of three leads to aninefold increase in the flaw size tolerance.

Reduction in the flaw sensitivity of ceramics isespecially important for applications involving ahostile environment, which can introduce strength-degrading defects and thus negate all efforts toensure reliability by identifying or eliminating thelargest preexisting flaws.

Three recent developments have been shownto improve the toughness of ceramics: micro-structure design, transformation toughening, andcomposite reinforcement.

Microstructure Design

The toughness of monolithic ceramics can beimproved considerably by refinement of the poly-crystalline grain size and shape. The presence ofelongated fibrous grains, especially in ceramicsbased on silicon nitride, has been shown to in-crease toughness by as much as a factor of 2 overother monolithic ceramics, such as silicon car-bide and aluminum oxide.3

Numerous mechanisms have been proposedto account for the observed toughening: crackdeflection, microcracking, residual stresses, crackpinning, and crack bridging. It is likely that sev-eral of these mechanisms operate simultaneously

3Nitrogen Ceramics, F. L. Riley (cd. ) (Boston and The Hague: Mar-tinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1983).


in these materials. The high toughness is accom-panied by high strength, both of which resultfrom the modified microstructure.

Figure 2-1 .—Probabiiity of Faiiure ofa Ceramic Component

The probability of failure of a ceramic component is the over-lap between the applied stress distribution and the materialstrength distribution, as shown in(a). This probability can bereduced by reducing the flaw size (b), or truncation of thestrength distribution through proof testing (c).SOURCE: R. Nathan Katz “Applications of High Performance Ceramics In Heat

Engine Design,” Materials Science and Engineering 71:227-249, 1985.

Transformation Toughening

Transformation toughening, a relatively newapproach to achieving high toughness and strengthin ceramics, has great potential for increasing theuse of ceramics in wear-resistance applications.The key ceramic material is zirconia (zirconiumoxide).

Zirconia goes through a phase transformationfrom the tetragonal to the monoclinic crystal formwhile cooling through a temperature of about21 00° F (1 150° C). This phase transformation isaccompanied by an increase in volume of 3 per-cent, similar to the volume increase that occurswhen water freezes. By control of composition,particle size, and heat treatment cycle, zirconiacan be densified at high temperature and cooledsuch that the tetragonal phase is maintaineddown to room temperature.

When a load is applied to the zirconia and acrack starts to propagate, the high stresses in thevicinity of the crack tip catalyze the transforma-tion of adjacent tetragonal zirconia grains to themonoclinic form, causing them to expand by 3percent. This expansion of the grains around thecrack tip compresses the crack opening, therebypreventing the crack from propagating.

Ceramic Matrix Composites

A variety of ceramic particulate, whiskershigh-strength single crystals with length/diameter

ratios of 10 or more), and fibers may be addedto the host matrix material to generate a com-posite with improved fracture toughness.

The presence of these reinforcements appearsto frustrate the propagation of cracks by at leastthree mechanisms. First, when the crack tip en-counters a particle or fiber that it cannot easilybreak or get around, it is deflected off in anotherdirection. Thus, the crack is prevented frompropagating cleanly through the structure. Sec-ond, if the bond between the reinforcement andthe matrix is not too strong, crack propagationenergy can be absorbed by pullout of the fiberfrom its original location. Third, fibers can bridgea crack, holding the two faces together, and thusprevent further propagation.

Ch. 2—Ceramics ● 4 1

Table 2-3 presents the fracture toughness andcritical flaw sizes (assuming a typical stress of 700megapascals [MPa], or about 100,000 pounds persquare inch [psi]) of a variety of ceramics andcompares them with some common metals. Thetoughness of monolithic ceramics generally fallsin the range of 3 to 6 MPa-m½, correspondingto a critical flaw size of 18 to 74 micrometers.With transformation toughening or whisker dis-persion, the toughness can be increased to 8 to12 MPa-m½ (the critical flaw size is 131 to 294micrometers); the toughest ceramic matrix com-posites are continuous fiber-reinforced glasses,at 15 to 25 MPa-m½. In these glasses, strengthappears to be independent of preexisting flaw sizeand is thus an intrinsic material property. By com-parison, metal alloys such as steel have tough-nesses of more than 40 MPa-m½, more than 10

Table 2-3.—Fracture Toughness and Critical FlawSize of Monolithic and Composite Ceramic

Materials Compared With Metals.a

Al2O 3: alumina; LAS: lithium aluminosilicate;CVD: chemical vapor deposition

Fracturetoughness

Material (MPa•m½)

Conventional microstructure:Al 2 O 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5-4.0Sintered SiC. . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0-3.5

Fibrous or interlockedmicrostructure:

Hot pressed Si3N4 . . . . . . . 4.0-6.0Sintered Si3N 4 . . . . . . . . . . 4.0-6.0SiAION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0-6.0

Particulate dispersions:Al 2O3TiC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-4.5Si3N4-TiC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5

Transformation toughening:ZrO2-MgO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-12ZrO 2-Y2O3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9Al 2O3-ZrO 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5-15

Whisker dispersions:Al2O3-SiC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10

Fiber reinforcement:b

SiC in borosilicate glass . 15-25SiC in LAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-25SiC in CVD SiC . . . . . . . . . 8-15

Aluminum c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-44Steel c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44-66

Criticalflaw size

(micrometers)

25-3318-25

33-7433-7433-74

36-4141

165-29474-16586-459

131-204

times the values of monolithic ceramics; the tough-ness of some alloys may be much higher.

The critical flaw size gives an indication of theminimum flaw size that must be reliably detectedin any nondestructive evaluation (N DE) to ensurereliability of the component. Most N DE techniquescannot reliably detect flaws smaller than about100 micrometers (corresponding to a toughnessof about 7 MPa-m½). Toughnesses of at least 10to 12 MPa-m½ would be desirable for most com-ponents.

Ceramic Coatings

The operation of machinery in hostile environ-ments (e. g., high temperatures, high mechanicalloads, or corrosive chemicals) often results in per-formance degradation due to excessive wear andfriction, and productivity losses due to shutdownscaused by component failure. Frequently, thecomponent deterioration can be traced to dele-terious processes occurring in the surface regionof the material. To reduce or eliminate such ef-fects, ceramic coatings have been developed toprotect or lubricate a variety of substrate materi-als, including metals, ceramics, and cermets(ceramic-metal composites).

The coating approach offers several advan-tages. First, it is possible to optimize independ-ently the properties of the surface region andthose of the base material for a given application.Second, it is possible to maintain close dimen-sional tolerances of the coated workpiece in thatvery thin coatings (of the order of a few micro-meters) are often sufficient for a given applica-tion. Third, there are significant cost savings asso-ciated with using expensive, exotic materials onlyfor thin coatings and not for bulk components.Use of coatings can thereby contribute to theconservation of strategically critical materials.Fourth, it is often cheaper to recoat a worn partthan to replace it.

aAssumes a stress of 700 MPa (-100,000 psi).bThe strength of these composites is independent of preexisting flaw size.cThe toughness of some alloys can be much higher

SOURCES: David W. Richerson, “Design, Processing Development, and Manufac-turing Requirements of Ceramics and Ceramic Matrix Composites,”contractor report for OTA December 1985; and Elaine P. Rothman,“Ultimate Properties of Ceramics and Ceramic Matrix Composites,”contractor report for OTA, December 1985

These advantages have led to widespread in-

dustry acceptance and applications. For instance,coatings of titanium nitride, titanium carbide, andalumina are used to extend the useful life of tung-sten carbide or high-speed steel cutting tools by


a factor of 2 to 5,4 In 1983, annual sales of coatedcutting tools reached about $1 billions.5

Ceramic coatings are also finding wide appli-cation in heat engines. Zirconia coatings of lowthermal conductivity are being tested as a ther-mal barrier to protect the metal pistons andcylinders of advanced diesel engines. In turbineengines, insulative zirconia coatings have been

4 D a v i d W . R i c h e r s o n , “ D e s i g n , P r o c e s s i n g D e v e l o p m e n t , a n d

Manufacturing Requirements of Ceramics and Ceramic Matrix Com-

posites, ” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment , December 1985.

‘U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, C e n s u sof Manufacturing, Fuels, and Electric Energy Consumed, 1984.

found to improve performance by permittingcombustion gas temperatures to be increased byseveral hundred degrees Fahrenheit without in-creasing the temperature of air-cooled metalcomponents or the complexity of the engine.6 Ce-ramic coatings are also being used to provide anoxidation barrier on turbine blades and rings.

Progress in the use of ceramic coatings in theseand other applications suggest that further re-search on new coatings and deposition processesis likely to yield a high payoff in the future.

6Tom Strangman, Garrett Turbine Engine Co., personal c o m m u -

nication, August 1986.

DESIGN, PROCESSING, AND TESTING

It is in the nature of advanced structural mate-rials that their manufacturing processes are ad-ditive rather than subtractive. Ideally, the mate-rials are not produced in billets or sheets that arelater rolled, cut, or machined to their final shape;rather, in each case the material is formed to itsfinal shape in the same step in which the micro-structure of the material itself is formed.

Because of the severity of joining problems, theceramics designer is always conscious of the needto consolidate as many components as possibletogether in a single structure. Although consoli-dation cannot always be achieved (expensivegrinding or drilling is often required), to a greatextent, the promise of advanced materials lies inthe possibility of net-shape processing, thereby elim-inating expensive finishing and fastening oper-ations.

Ceramics Design

Designing with ceramics and other brittle ma-terials is very different from designing with me-tals, which are much more tolerant of flaws. Inpractice, ceramic structures always contain a dis-tribution of flaws, both on the surface and in thebulk. Ceramic designs must avoid local stress con-centrations under loading, which may propagatecracks originating at the flaws.

One serious barrier to the use of ceramics isthe lack of knowledge among designers of the

principles of brittle material design. Greater em-phasis needs to be placed on brittle materials incollege curricula. Courses at the college level andminicourses for continuing education on designfor brittle materials should be offered and pub-licized. 7

A second serious barrier is the poor characteri-zation of commercially available ceramics for de-sign purposes. The data are inadequate becausethe mechanical, thermal, and chemical proper-ties of ceramic materials vary with the methodof manufacture as well as the test method. Bothcarefully controlled and documented processingprocedures and standard test methods, as dis-cussed in chapter 5, will be required to givedesigners the confidence that consistent proper-ties at a useful level can be obtained at a predict-able cost.

Processing of Ceramics

The production of most ceramics, includingboth traditional and advanced ceramics, consistsof the following four basic process steps: pow-der preparation, forming, densification, and fin-ishing. The most important processing techniquesinvolved in these steps are identified in table 2-4.

7Specific proposals for improving ceramics education are givenin the report of the Research Briefing Panel on Ceramics and Ce-ramic Composites (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,1985).

Ch. 2—Ceramics “ 43

Table 2.4.—Common Processing Operations forAdvanced Ceramics

Operation Process Examples

Forming

Powderpreparation Synthesis SiC

Sizing Si3N4

Granulating Zr02

BlendingSolution chemistry GlassesSlip casting Combustors, statorsDry pressing Cutting toolsExtrusion Tubing, honeycombInjection molding Turbocharger rotorsTape casting CapacitorsMelting/casting Glass ceramics

Densification Sintering Al203

Reaction bonding Si3N4

Hot pressing Si3N4, SiC, BNHot isostatic pressing Si3N4, SiC

Finishing Mechanical Diamond grindingChemical EtchingRadiation Laser, electron beamElectric Electric discharge

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment 1988

Powder Preparation

Although most of the basic raw materials forceramics occur abundantly in nature, they mustbe extensively refined or processed before theycan be used to fabricate structures. The entiregroup of silicon-based ceramics (other than sil-ica) does not occur naturally. Compositions ofsilicon carbide, silicon nitride, and sialon (an al-loy of silicon nitride with aluminum oxide inwhich aluminum and oxygen atoms substituteinto silicon and nitrogen lattice positions, respec-tively) must all be fabricated from gases or otheringredients. Even minerals that occur naturally,such as bauxite, from which alumina is made,and zircon sands, from which zirconia is derived,must be processed before use to control purity,particle size and distribution, and homogeneity.

The crucial importance of powder preparationhas been recognized in recent years. Particle sizesand size distributions are critical in advanced ce-ramics to produce uniform green (unfired) den-sities, so that consolidation can occur to producea fully dense, sintered, ceramic part.

Various dopants or sintering aids are added toceramic powders during processing. Sinterabil-ity can be enhanced with dopants, which con-trol particle rearrangement and diffusivities. Thesedopants permit sintering at lower temperatures

and/or faster rates. Dopants are also used to con-trol grain growth or achieve higher final densities.

The use of dopants, although providing manybeneficial results, can also have a detrimental in-fluence on the material properties. Segregationof dopants at the grain boundaries can weakenthe final part, and final properties such as con-ductivity and strength may differ significantly fromthose of the pure material.

Forming

Ceramic raw materials must be formed andshaped before firing. The forming process oftendetermines the final ceramic properties. The im-portant variables in the forming step are particleshape, particle packing and distribution, phasedistribution, and location of pores.

Forming processes for ceramics are generallyclassified as either cold forming or hot forming.The major cold forming processes include slipcasting, extrusion, dry pressing, injection mold-ing, tape casting, and variations of these. Theproduct of such processes is called a green body,which may be machined before firing. The homo-geneity of the cold-formed part determines theuniformity of shrinkage during firing.

Hot forming processes combine into one stepthe forming and sintering operation to producesimple geometric shapes. These processes includehot pressing (in which pressure is applied alongone direction) and hot isostatic pressing (HI Ping,i n which pressure is applied to the ceramic fromall directions at once).

Densification

Sintering is the primary method for convertingloosely bonded powder into a dense ceramicbody. Sintering involves consolidation of thepowder compact by diffusion on an atomic scale.Moisture and organics are first burned out fromthe green body, and then, at the temperaturerange at which the diffusion process occurs, mat-ter moves from the particles into the void spaces

between the particles, causing densification andresulting in shrinkage of the part. Combined withforming techniques such as slip casting, sinter-ing is a cost-effective means of producing intri-cate ceramic components. Its drawback lies in

75-7920 - 88 - 2


the need to use additives and long sintering timesto achieve high densities. The complications in-troduced by dopants have been noted above inthe discussion of powders.

Finishing

This step involves such processes as grindingand machining with diamond and boron nitridetools, chemical etching, and laser and electric dis-charge machining. The high hardness and chem-ical inertness of densified ceramics make the fin-ishing operations some of the most difficult andexpensive in the entire process. Grinding alonecan account for a large fraction of the cost of thecomponent. In addition, surface cracks are oftenintroduced during machining, and these can re-duce the strength of the part and the yields ofthe fabrication process.

Near-Net-Shape Processing

Near-net-shape processing describes any form-ing process that gives a final product that requireslittle or no machining. Typically, ceramics shrinkto about two-thirds of their green body volumeupon sintering. This shrinkage makes it extremelydifficult to fabricate ceramics to final net shape.However, if the green body ceramic is machinedprior to densification, a near-net-shape part canbe obtained. Hot isostatic pressing and ceramiccoatings can also yield parts that do not requiresubsequent machining.

Reaction bonding is a near-net-shape processthat has undergone considerable development,particularly for silicon nitride. In this process,green body compacts of finely divided siliconpowder are reacted with nitrogen gas to producesilicon nitride. In reaction bonding, the spacesbetween the silicon powder particles in the greenbody are filled with silicon nitride reaction prod-uct as the reaction proceeds, so no shrinkageoccurs. Reaction bonding can also be used toproduce ceramic composites with excellent prop-erties because this process avoids damage to rein-forcement fibers or whiskers caused by shrink-age during the sintering step.

Near-net-shape processes that are currentlyused for metals include powder metallurgy andadvanced casting techniques. Because metals arein direct competition with ceramics in many ap-

plications, near-net-shape processing of ceramicsmust continue to be a high-priority research areaif advanced ceramics are to be cost-competitive.


Ceramic matrix composites (CMCs) may con-sist of: randomly oriented ceramic whiskers withina ceramic matrix; continuous fibers orientedwithin a ceramic matrix; or dissimilar particles dis-persed in a matrix with a controlled microstruc-ture. The potential benefits of ceramic compos-ites include increased fracture toughness, highhardness, and improved thermal shock resistance.Processing methods for particulate-reinforcedcomposites are similar to those for monolithic ce-ramics, and so are not discussed in this section.

Whisker Reinforcement

Ceramic whiskers are typically high-strengthsingle crystals with a length at least 10 timesgreater than the diameter. Silicon carbide is themost common whisker material. Currently, whisker-reinforced CMCs are fabricated by uniaxial hotpressing, which substantially limits size and shapecapabilities and requires expensive diamondgrinding to produce the final part. Although hotisostatic pressing has the potential to permit fabri-cation of complex shapes at moderate cost, thistechnique requires procurement of expensivecapital equipment and extensive process devel-opment.

Continuous Fiber Reinforcement

The primary fibers available for incorporationinto a ceramic or glass matrix are carbon, siliconcarbide, aluminum borosilicate, and mullite. Cur-rently, glass matrix composites are more devel-oped than their ceramic analogs. These compos-ites are far tougher than unreinforced glasses, butare limited to service temperatures of 11 00° to1300° F (5930 to 704° C). Service temperaturesup to 2000° to 2200° F (1 0930 to 1204° C) maybe obtained with glass-ceramic matrices that crys-tallize upon cooling from the process tempera-ture.8 Carbon matrix composites have the highestpotential use temperature of any ceramic, ex-ceeding 3500° F (1 9270 C). However, they oxi-

8Karl M. Prewo, J.J. Brennan, and G.K. Layden, “Fiber-ReinforcedGlasses and Glass-Ceramics for High Performance Applications, ”American Ceramic Society Bulletin 65(2):305, 1986.

Ch. 2—Ceramics . 45

t5 0 µ M

iPhoto credit: Los Alamos National Laboratory

Fracture surface of a composite formed by hot-pressing silicon nitride powder with 30 percent by

volume silicon carbide whiskers.

dize readily in air at temperatures above about11 00° F (593° C), and require protective ceramiccoatings if they are to be used continuously athigh temperature.9

9Joel Clark, et. al., “Potential of Composite Materials To ReplaceChromium, Cobalt, and Manganese in Critical Applications,” a con-tractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment,1984.

Photo credit: United Technologies Research Center

Tensile fracture surface forNicalon SiC fiber-reinforced glass ceramic.

Fabr icat ion o f CMCs re in forced wi th cont inu-

ous f iber is cur rent ly o f a pro to type nature and

is very expensive. Several approaches are under

d e v e l o p m e n t :

the fibers are coated with ceramic or glasspowder, laid up in the desired orientation,and hot pressed;fibers or woven cloth are laid up, and arethen infiltrated by chemical vapor deposition(CVD) to bond the fibers together and fill ina portion of the pores;fibers are woven into a three-dimensionalpreform, and are then infiltrated by CVD;anda fiber preform is infiltrated with a ceramic-yielding organic precursor, and is then heat-treated to yield a ceramic layer on the fibers.This process is repeated until the pores areminimized.

Considerable R&D will be necessary to op-timize fabrication and to decrease the cost tolevels acceptable for most commercial appli-cations.

Ceramic Coatings

Many different processes are used in the fabri-cation of ceramic coatings and in the modifica-tion of surfaces of ceramic coatings and mono-

.


Iithic ceramics. Table 2-5 lists some of the moreimportant processes.

The choice of a particular deposition processor surface modification process depends on thedesired surface properties. Table 2-6 lists someof the coating characteristics and properties thatare often considered desirable. Additional con-siderations that can influence the choice of coat-

ing process include the purity, physical state, andtoxicity of the material to be deposited; the depo-sition rate; the maximum temperature the sub-strate can reach; the substrate treatment neededto obtain good coating adhesion; and the over-all cost.

For most coating processes, the relationshipsbetween process parameters and coating prop-

Table 2-5.—Selected Processes for the Production of Ceramic Coatingsand for the Modification of Ceramic Surfaces

Process category Process class Process

Ceramic coating processes:Low gas pressure (“vacuum”)

processes

Processes at elevated gas pressures

Liquid phase epitaxy processes

Electrochemical processes

Chemical vapor deposition (CVD)

Physical vapor deposition (PVD)

Low pressure plasma spraying

Plasma sprayingFlame spraying

Wetting process

Spin-on coatings

Electrolytic deposition

Electrophoretic depositionAnodization

Electrostatic deposition

Processes for the modification of ceramic surfaces:Particle implantation processes

Densification and glazing processes

Chemical reaction processes

Conversion processes

Etching processes

Mechanical processes

Direct particle implantation

Recoil particle implantation

Laser beam densification andglazing

Electron beam densification andglazing

Gaseous anodization processes

Disproportionation processes

Thermal diffusion

Chemical etching

Ion etching

GrindingPeeningPolishing

PyrolysisReduction (plasma assisted)Decomposition (plasma assisted)Polymerization (plasma induced)

Evaporation (reactive, plasma assisted)Sputtering (reactive, plasma assisted)Plasma-arc (random, steered)Ion beam assisted co-depositionPlasma discharge spraying

Plasma arc sprayingCombustion flame spraying

Dip coating (e.g., Sol-Gel)Brush coating

Reverse-roller coating

Cation deposition

Charged colloidal particle depositionAnion oxidation in electrolytes

Charged liquid droplet deposition

Energetic ion or atom implantation insolids

Recoil atom (ion) implantation in

CW-laser power depositionPulsed-laser power deposition

Energetic electron beam powerdeposition

Ion nitridingIon carburizingPlasma oxidation

Deposition of molecular speciesFormed in gas phase

solids

Diffusion of material from surface intobulk of substrate

Acidic solutions; lye etching

Sputter process

SOURCE: Manfred Kaminsky, Surface Treatment Science International, Hinsdale, IL


Table 2-6.—Characteristics and Properties ofCeramic Coatings Often Considered Desirable

Good adhesionPrecise stoichiometry (negligible contamination)Very dense (or very porous) structural morphologyThickness uniformityHigh dimensional stabilityHigh strengthHigh fracture toughnessInternal stresses at acceptable levelsControlled density of structural defectsLow specific densityHigh thermal shock resistanceHigh thermal insulating propertiesHigh thermal stabilityLow (or high) coefficient of frictionHigh resistance to wear and creepHigh resistance to oxidation and corrosionAdequate surface topography

SOURCE: Manfred Kaminsky, Surface Treatment Science International, Hinsdale,IL.

erties and performance in various environmentsare poorly understood. Coating providers tendto rely on experience gained empirically. Workis in progress to establish these relationships forcertain processes, e.g., ion beam- or plasma-assisted physical vapor deposition. In addition,improved deposition processes are required, par-ticularly for the coating of large components orthose having a complex shape. In view of the cur-rent widespread use of coated machinery com-ponents and projected future requirements forcomponents with advanced ceramic coatings, re-search in processing science for ceramic coatingsremains an important priority.

Chemically Bonded Ceramics

Hardened cement pastes and concretes fall inthe category of chemically bonded ceramics(CBCs) because they are consolidated throughchemical reactions at ambient temperaturesrather than through densification at high temper-ature. Owing to their low strength (comparedwith dense ceramics), concrete and other cemen-titious materials are not normally considered tobe advanced materials. However, in recent years,new processing methods have led to significantimprovements in the strength of chemicallybonded ceramics, and further development willprovide additional improvements.

Cements

Cements are chemically active binders that maybe mixed with inert fillers such as sand or gravelto form concrete. Cement pastes containing mi-nor additives such as organic polymers can alsobe used as structural materials. By far the mostcommon cement used in making CBCs is port-Iand cement. Portland and related cements arehydraulic; that is, they react with water to forma relatively insoluble aggregate. In hydraulic ce-ments, excess water is usually added to improvethe working characteristics, but this causes thehardened structures to be porous (the minimumporosity of fully-hydrated cements is about 28percent) and of low strength.10

Recently, workability of such cements has beenimproved by using a high-shear processing tech-nique together with pressing or rolling to removepores from a low-water calcium aluminate ce-ment paste containing 5 to 7 percent (by weight)organic polymers. The dense paste, which is

10Richard A. Helmuth, Portland Cement Association, Personalcommunication, August 1986.

[ ● ✎

*

Photo credits: lmperial Chemical Industries PLC

Top photo: Conventional Portland cement pastemicrostructure, showing large flaws (pores).

Bottom photo: Advanced cement paste microstructure,illustrating the absence of large pores

(magnification x 100).


sometimes called macro-defect-free (MDF) ce-ment, has the consistency of cold modeling clay,and can be molded or extruded by techniquessimilar to those used for plastics.

The hardened cement paste has a compressivestrength approaching that of aluminum (table 2-7) and much lower permeability than ordinaryportland cement paste.11 Although MDF cementpastes cost 20 to 30 cents per pound (comparedwith 3 cents per pound for portland cementpaste), they are still significantly cheaper than me-tals and plastics.

The processing of hydraulic CBCs is very cheapbecause it involves only adding water, mixing,casting or molding, and permitting the materialto set at room temperature or slightly elevatedtemperature. Very little dimensional change oc-curs during the set and cure, so that parts can

be made to net shape. Due to the low process-ing temperature, it is possible to use any of a widevariety of reinforcing fibers, including metalfibers. However, the presence of organics makesthem unsuitable for use above 200° F (93° C).Further work is needed to improve the long-termstability of these materials.

Concrete

As chemical additives, such as organic poly-mers, have improved the properties of cementpastes, chemical and mineral additives have hada similar effect on concrete. Minerals such as flyash and microscopic silica particles help to fill inthe pores in the concrete and actually improvethe bonding in the cementitious portion. This re-sults in greater strength and reduced permeabil-ity.12 In a recently developed concrete, moltensulfur is used as a binder in place of cement. Sul-fur concrete has superior corrosion resistance inacidic environments and can be recycled byremelting and recasting without loss of the me-chanical properties.13

11 According to product Iiterature supplied by Imperial ChemicalIndustries, “New Inorganic Materials. ”

The compressive strength of typical concretestoday is around 5,000 psi (34 MPa), although con-cretes with strengths of 10,000 to 15,000 psi (69to 103 MPa) are becoming common. Under lab-oratory conditions, compressive strengths of atleast 45,000 psi (310 MPa) have been achieved,and there is no indication that the ultimatestrength is being approached .14 In concrete high-

Photo credit: CEMCOM Research Associates, Inc.

This tool, made from a cement-based composite,is used for autoclave forming of a fiber-epoxy

jet engine component.

12For a recent review, see Jan Skalny and Lawrence R. Roberts,“High Strength Concrete, ” Annual Review of Materials Science17:35, 1987.

13 U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, Bulletin 678, "Sul -

fur Construction Materials,” by W.C. McBee, T.A. Sullivan, andH.L. Fike, 1985.

14 Sidney Mindess, “Relationships Between Strength and Micro-structure for Cement-Based Materials: An Overview, ” Materials Re-search Society Symposium Proceedings 42:53, 1985.

Table 2-7.—Comparison of the Mechanical Properties of Various Cements and Aluminum

Material Density (g/cm3) Flexural strength (psi)a Compressive strength (psi) Fracture energy (J/m2)

Portland cement paste . . . . . 1.6-2.0b 725-1,450 4,000-5,000 b 20Cement/asbestos . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 5,075 — 300Advanced cementsc. . . . . . . . 2.3-2.5 14,500-21,750 22,000-36,000 300-1,000Aluminum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 21,750-58,000 42,000 10,000a1 MPa = 145 psi.bAccording to information supplied by the Portland Cement Association.cThe advanced cement has the following composition: 100 parts high alumina Cement; 7 parts hydrolyzed potyvinylacetate; 10-12 parts water.

SOURCE: Imperial Chemical Industries.


r ise bu i ld ings, the h igher compress ive s t rengths

permi t use of smal ler co lumns, wi th consequent

savings in space and materials.

Two deficiencies in concrete as a structural ma-terial are its low tensile strength and low tough-ness. A typical concrete has a tensile strength be-low 1,000 psi (7 MPa). Steel reinforcement barsare added to the concrete to provide tensilestrength. In prestressed concrete, high-strengthsteel wires under tension are used to keep theconcrete in a state of compression. To improvestrength and toughness, a variety of reinforcingfibers, including steel, glass, and polymers, havebeen tried, with varying degrees of success. 15

Compared with unreinforced materials, fiber rein-forcement can increase the flexural strength bya factor of 2.5 and the toughness by a factor of5 to 10.16 This reinforcement technology, whichdates back to the straw-reinforced brick of theancient Egyptians, requires fiber concentrationsthat are sufficiently low (usually 2 to 5 percentby volume) to preserve the flow characteristicsof the concrete, plus a chemically stable inter-face between the fiber and the concrete overtime. Asbestos fibers served this function for manyyears; however, because of the health hazards,new fibers are now being sought.

In recent years, several Japanese firms have de-veloped concretes reinforced with carbon andaramid fibers, and pitch-based carbon fiber-reinforced concrete curtain walls have been usedin Tokyo office buildings. Although the carbonfiber concrete panels cost 40 percent more thanprecast concrete, their light weight permits theuse of a lighter weight structural steel frame, re-sulting in overall construction cost savings. ’ 7

Nondestructive Evaluation

Nondestructive evaluation (NDE), which is ameans of determining properties of a structurewithout altering it in any way, has long been usedfor flaw detection in ceramic materials to improvethe reliability of the final product. In the future,NDE will be used for defect screening, material

characterization, in-process control, and life-cyclemonitoring. It will be applied to the starting mate-rials, during the process, and to the final product.

A key goal will be the evolution of NDE tech-niques amenable to automation and computeri-zation for feedback control. Powder and greenbody characterization will be critical tor materi-als processed from powders. For in-processcharacterization, it will be essential to determinethe relation between measurable quantities, ob-tained through the use of contact or noncontactsensors, and the desired properties. This will re-quire developments in sensor technology as wellas theories that can quantitatively relate the meas-u red N DE signal to the specific properties of in-terest.

In the past, a great deal of emphasis has beenplaced on the sensitivity of an NDE technique,that is, the size of the smallest detectable flaw.However, experience has shown that most qual-ity problems result not from minute flaws butfrom relatively gross undetected flaws introducedduring the fabrication process.18 Therefore, amore relevant criterion for reliabiIity purposes isperhaps the size of the largest flaw that can goundetected. To date, though, there has been verylittle emphasis on the reliability of NDE tech-niques, that is, the probability of detecting flawsof various sizes.

Cost-of-production estimates for high-perform-ance ceramic components typicalIy cite inspec-tion costs as accounting for approximately 50 per-cent of the manufacturing cost.19 Successful NDEtechniques for ceramic components, therefore,should meet two major criteria. First, they shouldreliably detect gross fabrication flaws to ensurethat the material quality of the component isequal to that of test specimens. Second, theyshould be able to evaluate the quality of a com-plex-shaped component in a practical manner.No single NDE technique for ceramics completelysatisfies these criteria. However, those that couldbe cost-effective for production-level inspectionsare identified in table 2-8.

‘ 51bld16Am~rlCan Cc)ncrete I nStlt Ute, ‘ ‘State-of-the-Art Report on Fiber

Reinforced Concrete , ” Repor t No, ACI 544.1 R-82, 1982.17Englneerlng fQe\v5 R e c o r d , Au~. 1, 1985, P. 16

IBR, Nathan Katz and Altred L. Broz, ‘‘Nondestructive Evaluation

Conslderatlons for Ceramtcs and Ceramic Mat r ix Composi tes , ” a

contractor report prepared for the Off Ice of Technology Assessment,

N o v e m b e r 1 9 8 5 .1 9I b i d


Table 2.8.—Comparison of Some Possible Production-Level NDE Techniques for Structural Ceramics

Adaptability to Extent of developmentNDE technique Detected flaw type Sensitivity complex shapes required for commercialization

Visual (remote) . . . . . . . . . . surface fair good noneDye penetrant . . . . . . . . . . . surface good good noneRadiographic . . . . . . . . . . . . bulk 1-20/0 of specimen excellent none

thicknessUltrasonic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bulk and surface good poor someHolographic . . . . . . . . . . . . . surface good fair largeThermographic. . . . . . . . . . . surface poor excellent someProof test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . any good, but may excellent none

introduce flawsSOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988.

HEALTH AND SAFETY

The most serious health hazard involved withceramics appears to stem from use of ceramicfibers and whiskers. Studies carried out at the Na-tional Cancer Institute have indicated that virtu-ally all durable mineral fibers having a diameterof less than 1 micrometer are carcinogenic whenintroduced into the lining of the lungs of labora-tory rats.20 The carcinogenicity drops with in-creasing diameter, such that fibers having di-ameters greater than 3 micrometers do not producetumors. Recent studies on commercially availablealuminosilicate fibers suggest that animals ex-

posed to the fibers develop an increased num-ber of lung cancers over time compared with acontrol group.21

No data on the effects of ceramic fibers orwhiskers on humans are available, and no indus-try standards for allowable fiber and whisker con-centrations in the workplace have been estab-lished. Until such data become available, theanimal studies suggest that these fibers should beconsidered carcinogenic, and they should betreated in a manner similar to asbestos fibers.

20 Mear] F. Stanton, et al., journal of the National cancer /f?Sti- ZI Phillp j. Landrigan, M. D., The Mount Sinai Medical Center, per-ture 67:965-75, 1981. sonal communication, August 1986.

APPLICATIONS OF STRUCTURAL CERAMICS

Figure 2-2 shows an estimated timetable for theintroduction of ceramic products in various cat-egories. It shows that some advanced structuralceramics are in production, some have near-termpotential for production, and some are far fromproduction.

Current Applications

in the United States, ceramics such as aluminaand silicon carbide are already well establishedin commercial production for many structural ap-plications in the categories of wear parts, cuttingtools, bearings, membranes, filters, and coatings.The ceramics portion of these markets is currently

small (generally less than 5 percent).22 However,substantial growth in ceramics production is ex-pected to occur over the next 25 years in re-sponse to increasing overall market demand, in-crease in the ceramics market share, and spin-offapplications.

Current U.S. military applications for ceramicsinclude radomes, armor, and infrared windows(see section entitled, Military Applications andProduction). In Japan, ceramics are in limited pro-duction in discrete automotive engine compo-

22 U.S. Department of Commerce, A Competitive Assessment of

the U.S. Advanced Ceramics Industry (Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office, March 1984), pp. 38-39.

Figure 2.2.—Estimated Scenario for Implementation of Ceramic Components in Structural Application Categories

Wear parts

Cutting tools

Advanced construction

Military applications

Bearings

Bioceramics

Heat exchangers

Electrochemical devices

Heat engines:

Gasoline automotive

Diesel automotive

Automotive turbine

Other turbines

Coatings

products

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20101 I I I I I

Al2O 3 sic PSZ Si3N4 CompositesTTA TZP Si3N4-BN

Al2O 3 Al2O3-TiC Si3N4 Al2O3-SiCI coating TTA Advanced materials

chemically Compositesbonded ceramics

B4C Armor Coatings Bearings Diesels TurbinesRadomes Isolated components

I AI2O3 Si3N4 Military

Al2O3 FDA hip Orthopedic Advancedclinical approval and dental materials

Recuperated Rotary Tubular Cogeneration Fhwdfurnaces Military Industrial boundary

02 sensors Electrochlorination Na-S battery Fuelrod02 pump

F

Exhaust port liner Piston pinTurbochargerCam follower

Pre-chamber, coatings Isolated partsGlow plug Uncooled engine

Isolatedcomponents

Wear and Cutting Turbine Minimum—cookdcorrosion toots components diesel

I resistance

SOURCE: David W. Richerson, “Design, Processing Development, and Manufacturing Requirements of Ceramics and Ceramic Matrix Composites, ” contractor report prepared for the Office

of Technology Assessment, December 1985.


nents such as turbocharger rotors, glow plugs,and precombustion chambers for diesel engines.In West Germany, the automobile manufacturerPorsche uses ceramic exhaust port liners on onemodel. To gain experience in fabricating advancedceramics, Japanese firms use advanced manufac-turing techniques to produce such consumerproducts as ceramic ballpoint pen tips, tools, andscissors. These products also help to promotefamiliarity with the new materials among the Jap-anese public.

In the United States, research funding forknown near-term markets is currently being pro-vided by industry. Much of the funding is directedtoward development of new or improved ceramicor CMC materials. Key objectives are to achieveimproved toughness, higher reliability, and lowercost. Development of silicon nitride, transforma-tion-toughened ceramics, and composites hasyielded materials with enhanced toughness andreliability, but costs are still high and reliabilityremains a problem. Currently, progress is beingmade in resolving these limitations, and forecastsindicate there will be large increases in the mar-ket share for ceramics.

Near-Term Applications

U.S. production in the near term (the next 10to 15 years) is projected in advanced construc-tion products, bearings, membranes for foodprocessing applications, bioceramics, heat ex-changers, electrochemical devices, isolated com-ponents for internal combustion engines, and mil-itary applications. The technology feasibility forthese applications has generally been demon-strated, but scale-up, cost reduction, or designoptimization are required.

Although much of the feasibility demonstrationhas occurred in the United States, foreign industryand government/industry teams, particularly inJapan, have more aggressive programs to com-mercialize the near-term applications. Large mar-kets are at stake; foreign dominance of these mar-kets would adversely affect the U.S. balance oftrade.

Far-Term Applications

Some potential applications of ceramics requiresolution of major technical and economic prob-lems. These high-risk categories are categorizedas far-term (greater than 15 years away). The ulti-mate payoff may be large, but it is not possibleto predict confidently that the problems will beovercome to achieve the benefits.

Far-term applications include the automotivegas turbine engine, the advanced diesel, someelectrochemical devices such as fuel cells, someheat exchangers, and some bearings. A varietyof other turbines, especially those for aircraftpropulsion and utility-scale power generation,should also be categorized as far-term.

Substantial design, material property, and man-ufacturing advances are necessary to achieve pro-duction of applications in the far-term category.In general, risk is perceived by industry to be toohigh and too long-range to justify funding theneeded developments. Advancement will likelybe driven by government funding. In many ofthese categories, military use will predate com-mercial use.

Markets for Advanced StructuralCeramics

Estimated structural ceramics markets in theyear 2000 for several of the categories listedabove are shown in figure 2-3.

Wear Parts

Wear parts include such applications as seals,valves, nozzles, wear pads, grinding wheels, andliners. The Department of Commerce has esti-mated that by the year 2000 ceramics could cap-ture roughly 6 percent of the wear-parts market,which is currently dominated by tungsten car-bide, cermets, and specialty steels. With the to-tal market estimated at $9 billion, the ceramicportion would be $540 million.23

‘] Ibid., p. 35,


Figure 2-3.—Projected U.S. Markets for Structural‘Ceramics in the Year 2000 (billions of dollars)

1 . 0

0.5

SOURCES: aU.S. Department of Commerce, “A Competitive Assessment of theU.S. Advanced Ceramics Industry" (Washington, DC, U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, March 1984)

bE.P. Rothman, J. Clark, and H.K. Bowen, "Ceramic Cutting Tools: AProduction Cost Model and an Analysis of Potential Demand," Ad-vanced Ceramic Materials, American Ceramics Society, Vol 1, No.4, October, 1986, pp 325-331.

C High Technology, March, 1988, p. 14.d Business Communications Co., Inc., as reported in Ceramic Indus-

try, Jan 1988, p. 10.eDavid W. Richerson, "Design, Processing Development, and Manu-

facturing Requirements of Ceramics and Ceramic Matrix Compos-ites," contractor report prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, December 1985

f Assumes a doubling from 1986. Paul Hurley, "New Filters Can CleanUp in New Markets," High Technology, August 1987

Cutting Tools

Ceramics have demonstrated capability as cut-ting tools, especially in competition with tung-sten carbide-cobalt cermets as inserts for metalturning and milling operations. The advantage ofceramics compared with carbides is retention ofhigh hardness, strength, and chemical inertnessto temperatures in excess of 1000° C (18320 F).This permits use of the ceramics at much highermachining speeds than can be tolerated bycarbides,

However, the ceramics have lower toughnessthan the carbide materials, and have only been

used successfully in the limited operations of turn-ing and milling. A further impediment to the useof ceramics, especially in the United States, hasbeen equipment limitations; much of the produc-tion metal machining equipment does not havethe rigidity or speed capability to use ceramics.

A 1986 projection for ceramic and ceramic-coated cutting tools (the largest portion of whichare inserts) places the growth rate at about 6 per-cent per year from a present market of $600 mil-lion to a market of over $1 billion by 1995. 24 Thevast majority of this market is coated carbide tool-ing. A second projection, for only the solid ce-ramic insert cutting tool market, is $128 millionoverall market by the year 2000. 25

Bearings

High-performance ceramic bearings have beendeveloped for military applications such as mis-siles. The primary candidate material is hotpressed silicon nitride. Ceramics offer resistanceto low-temperature corrosion, high-temperaturestability, low density, and the ability to operatefor a moderate length of time with little or no lu-brication. Hot isostatic pressing is being devel-oped to improve properties and to decrease costby permitting near-net-shape fabrication.

The military developments will yield a technol-ogy base that can be applied to commercial prod-ucts such as instrumentation bearings, hydrau-lic and pneumatic activator systems, and ceramiccoatings on the foils in gas bearings. Potential ce-ramic bearing markets have been estimated tobe $300 million per year.26

Membranes

Membrane filters are used in a wide variety ofseparation and purification processes, and mar-kets are projected to increase from $500 millionin 1986 to $2 billion by 1995. Some of the fastestgrowing segments are expected to be food and

24 G. Shroff, SRI International, “Business Opportunities in Ad-vanced Structural Ceramics and Ceramic Coatings, excerpted InAdvanced Ceramic Mater;a/s 1(4):294, October 1986.

25 Elaine P. Roth ma n, Joel Clark, and H. Kent Bowen, ‘‘Ceram IC

Cutting Tools: A Production Cost Model and an Analysis of Poten-tial Demand, ” Advanced Ceramic Materials, American Ceramic So-ciety 1(4):325-331, October 1986.

26 High Technology/, March 1986 p. 14.


beverage processing, aqueous waste processing,diesel engine exhaust filters, and gas separation.Although ceramic membranes cost more than themore well-established polymer membranes, ce-ramics offer a number of performance advan-tages, including resistance to high temperatures,chemical and mechanical stability, and ease ofcleaning. In 1986, markets for ceramic membraneswere estimated at $200 million, and growth ratesof up to 30 percent are projected into the 1990s.27

Coatings

Ceramic coatings should be considered an ex-tremely important technology for extending theperformance of metal components, and, in somecases, they may be an excellent alternative tomonolithic ceramics. They provide a variety ofbenefits, including abrasion resistance, thermalprotection, corrosion resistance, and high-tem-perature lubrication. Applications include ultra-hard coatings for cutting tools, thermal insulationand lubricating coatings for adiabatic diesel en-gines and cooled gas turbines, and bioactive glasscoatings for metal orthopedic implants. The listcould be expanded to include other sectors suchas mining (e.g., drills); utilities (e.g., turbine-

27Paul Hudey, “New Filters Clean Up in New Markets,” HighTechnology, August 1987.

generator sets, heat exchangers); agriculture (e.g.,plows and tillers); and aerospace (e.g., bearings,power transfer assemblies, and actuator drivesystems).

The availability of advanced ceramic coatingsis expected to be a significant benefit to the U.S.economy. The value of the market for ceramiccoatings is not easily assessed because the rangeof applications is so wide. In 1985, markets forceramic coating materials were estimated at $1billion worldwide, of which about 60 to 70 per-cent was domestic.28 This estimated market in-cludes jet engine, printing, chemical, textile, andtool and die applications. This list could be greatlyexpanded in the future to include wear parts,bearings, biomaterials, heat exchangers, and au-tomotive components.

Advanced Construction Products

Potential applications of advanced cement-based materials include floors, wall panels, androof tiles, in addition to pipes, electrical fittings,and cabinets. The cements can be laminated withwood or foam to form hard, decorative, and pro-tective surfaces.29 Advanced cement pastes cost$0.20 to $0.30 per pound (compared with $0.75to $2 per pound for metals and plastics), and theycould displace these materials in the future inmany common uses.

The development of a cost-effective, durable,high-tensile, and high-compressive strength con-crete would have dramatic implications for theinfrastructure of the United States. It has beenestimated that between 1981 and the end of thecentury, the Nation will spend about $400 bil-lion on replacement and repair of pavements andabout $103 billion to correct bridge deficien-cies. 30 Cost savings of about $600 million per yearcould result from implementing new technol-ogies.31

Zsjulie M. schoerrung, Elaine P. Rothman, and Joel P. Clark, “prop-erties, Costs, and Applications of Ceramics and Ceramic MatrixComposites,” a contractor report prepared for the Office of Tech-nology Assessment, December 1985.

Zglmperial Chemical Industries, “New Inorganic Materials” (prod-uct literature).

JoNational Research Council, Transportation Research Board,America’s Highways: Accelerating the Search for Innovation, spe-cial report No. 202, 1984.

31 Ibid.

Ch. 2–Ceramics “ 55

A spring made from a high-strength cement, formed by eThe spring is not Intended for any practical use, but

Photo credits: CEMCOM Research Assiciates, Inc.

xtrusion processing. Left: natural length. Right: compressed.demonstrates the versatility and resilience of the material.


In addition to reducing repair and maintenancecosts, new materials would provide other bene-fits. For instance, high compressive strength con-crete can be used to reduce the number andthickness of concrete bridge girders, significantlyreducing the structural weight.32 In concrete high-rise buildings, the use of such materials permitsa reduction in the diameter of the columns, thusfreeing up additional floor space.

There are major barriers to the developmentand implementation of new technologies in theconstruction industry. Some of those most oftencited are industry fragmentation (e.g., some23,000 Federal, State, and local agencies oper-ate the Nation’s highway system); an arrangementthat awards contracts to the lowest bidder; andlow industry investment in research as a percent-age of sales (the steel industry, by contrast, in-vests eight times more).33 The low investment isdue in part to the fact that the principal benefitsof the use of better materials accrue to the ownerof the highway or bridge (the taxpayer) ratherthan to the cement producer. 34

The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of1986 (Public Law 100-1 7) sets aside 0.25 percentof Federal aid highway funds for the 5-year, $150million Strategic Highway Research Program. Theprogram, which is administered by the NationalResearch Council, has targeted six priority re-search areas for support: asphalt characteristics,$50 million; long-term pavement performance,$50 miIlion; maintenance cost-effectiveness, $20million; concrete bridge components, $10 mil-lion; cement and concrete, $12 million; and snowand ice control, $8 million. 35

Bioceramics

Bioceramics, or ceramics for medical applica-tions such as dental or orthopedic implants, rep-resent a major market opportunity for ceramicsin the future. The overall worldwide market forbiocompatible materials is currently about $3 bil-lion, and this is expected to double or triple in

32J. E. Carpenter, “Applications of High Strength Concrete for High-way Bridges, ” Pub/ic Roads 44(76), 1980.

IJNational Research Council, op. cit., 1984.34Ibid.35"Construction and Materials Research and Development for the

Nation’s Public Works,” OTA staff paper, June 1987.

the next decade.36 Ceramics could account for25 to 30 percent of this market.37 However, notall estimates are so optimistic. One projectionplaces the U.S. bioceramics market at $8 millionin 1987, increasing to $60 million by 2000.38

Bioceramics may be grouped into three cate-gories: nearly inert, surface-active, and resorba-ble.39 Nearly inert ceramics can be implanted inthe body without toxic reactions. These materi-als include silicon nitride-based ceramics, trans-formation-toughened zirconia, and transforma-tion-toughened alumina.

Surface-active ceramics form a chemical bondwith surrounding tissue and encourage ingrowth.They permit the implant to be held firmly in placeand help prevent rejection due to dislocation orto influx of bacteria. Surface-active ceramics thatwill bond to bone include dense hydroxyapatite,surface-active glass, glass-ceramic, and surface-active composites. The function of resorbablebioceramics is to provide a temporary space filleror scaffold that will serve until the body can grad-ually replace it.

Resorbable ceramics are used to treat maxil-Iofacial defects, for filling periodontal pockets, asartificial tendons, as composite bone plates, andfor filling spaces between vertebrae, in bone,above alveolar ridges, or between missing teeth.An early resorbable ceramic was plaster of paris(calcium sulfate), but it has been replaced bytrisodium phosphate, calcium phosphate salts,and polylactic acid/carbon composites.40

Any new material intended for use in the hu-man body must undergo extensive testing beforeit is approved. Preclinical testing, clinical studies,and followup generally take a minimum of 5 yearsto complete.41 However, ceramics have been in

36 Larry L. Hench and June Wilson Hench, “Biocompatibility ofSilicates for Medical Use, ” Silicon Biochemistry, CIBA FoundationSymposium, No. 121 (Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons,1986), pp. 231-246.

37 Larry L. Hench, University of Florida, personal communication,

August 1986.38 According to Business Communications Co., Inc., as reported

in Ceramic Industry, January 1988, p. 10.3 9 J . W . B o r e t o s , " C e r a m i c s i n C l i n i c a l C a r e , ” A m e r i c a n C e r a m i c s

Society Bulletin 64(8):630-636, 1985.40 Ibid.41 Edwardo March, Food and Drug Administration, personal com-

munication, August 1986.


42 Richerson, op. cit., footnote 4

Heat Exchangers

Ceramic heat exchangers are cost-effective be-cause they can use waste heat to reduce fuel con-sumption. Heat recovered from the exhaust ofa furnace is used to preheat the inlet combus-tion air so that additional fuel is not required forthis purpose. The higher the operating tempera-ture, the greater the benefit. Ceramic systemshave the potential to reduce fuel consumptionby more than 60 percent.43

Ceramic heat exchangers may be used in a va-riety of settings, including industrial furnaces, in-dustrial cogeneration, gas turbine engines, andfluidized bed combustion, The size of the unit,manufacturing technique, and material all varydepending on the specific application. Sinteredsilicon carbide and various aluminosilicates havebeen used in low-pressure heat exchangers be-cause of their thermal shock resistance; however,the service temperature of these materials is cur-rently limited to under 2200° F (1204° C). Siliconcarbide is being evaluated for higher tempera-tures, but considerable design modifications willbe necessary .44

Federal Government support has been neces-sary to accelerate development of the ceramicmaterials and system technology for heat ex-changers, in spite of the design projections of sig-nificant fuel savings and short payback time. Thematerial manufacturers, system designers, andend users have all considered the risks too highto invest their own funds in the development andimplementation of a system.

Three of their specific concerns are: 1) the highinstalled cost (up to $500,000 for a unit that de-livers 20 million British thermal units per hour),which represents a significant financial risk to theuser for a technology that is not well proven; 2)many potential end users are in segments of in-dustry that presently are depressed; and 3) de-signs vary according to each installation, leadingthe user to want a demonstration relevant to hisparticular situation.

43s. M. Johnson ancj D.J. Rowcliffe, SRI International Report to

EPRI, “Ceramics for Electric Power-Generating Systems, ” January1986.

44 Richerson, op. cit., footnote 4.


Many of the ceramic heat exchanger programswere initiated in the 1970s when there was a na-tional sense of urgency concerning the energycrisis. In recent years, declining fuel prices havegenerally reduced this sense of urgency. As longas low fuel prices persist, this could delay thewidespread implementation of ceramic heat ex-changers for waste heat recovery.

Electrochemical Devices

Although not strictly structural applications ofceramics, devices in this category use ceramicsfor both their electrical and structural properties.Typically, the ceramic, such as zirconia or betaalumina, serves as a solid phase conductor forions such as oxygen or sodium. Examples includeoxygen sensors, oxygen concentration cells, solidoxide fuel cells, the sodium-sulfur battery, sodiumheat engine, and electrodes for metal winningand electrochlorination cells. As a group, theseapplications could comprise a market of over$250 million for ceramics by the year 2000.45

Heat Engines

The advantages of using ceramics in advancedheat engines have been widely publicized. Theseinclude increased fuel efficiency due to higherengine operating temperatures, more compactdesigns, and reduction or elimination of the cool-ing system.46 Ceramics are being considered inthree general categories: 1 ) discrete componentssuch as turbocharger rotors in metal reciprocat-ing engines; 2) coatings and monolithic hot-section components in advanced diesel designs;and 3) all-ceramic gas turbine engines.

Some analysts have predicted that componentsfor heat engines will be the largest area of growthfor structural ceramics over the next 25 years.projected market estimates vary widely. Earlierestimates tended to be more optimistic, with sev-eral analysts projecting U.S. ceramic heat enginemarkets around $5 billion by the year 2000. TheDepartment of Commerce has conservatively esti-mated a U.S. market of $56 million by 1990 and

45 Ibid.46R. Nathan Katz, “Applications of High Performance Ceramics

in Heat Engine Design, ” Materials Science and Engineering 71 ;227-249, 1985.

$840 million by 2000.47A study by Charles RiverAssociates estimates U.S. consumption of ceramicheat engine parts at $25 to $45 million in 1990and $920 million to $1.3 billion by 2000.48

Some structural ceramic components are al-ready in limited production in automobile en-gines. Ceramic precombustion chambers andglow plugs for diesels, as well as ceramic turbo-charger rotors, are now i n production i n currentmodel Japanese cars.

Ceramic engine components markets willgrow, but not to a level that will account for theprojected $1 billion sales for heat engine com-ponents in the year 2000. Growth to this levelwould require material and design technologybreakthroughs, as well as manufacturing scale-up and cost reduction. In view of these techni-cal and economic barriers, the more conserva-tive estimates are likely to be the more accurate.

Gasoline Engines

The automotive internal combustion gasolineengine offers a vast market for materials. Totalsales for 1985 of cars and trucks in the free worldhave been estimated at 38,7 million units.49 Anypart replacement or new part would representa volume market with substantial sales, even ifthe unit price were small. However, current en-gine designs are considered by automotive com-panies to be mature, reliable, and cost-effective.

Very few incentives for change exist. Cost re-duction does remain a significant incentive, butthis goal is extremely difficult to satisfy for a newmaterial, whose introduction may require re-design of adjacent parts, retooling, and modifi-cation of the production line.

Another incentive is to develop a new technol-ogy that may be applicable to advanced designs.This would involve both generic and directedR&D, with the primary objective of maintaininga competitive position. Ceramics within thiscategory that have potential for production in-

47 U.S. Department of Commerce, op. cit., footnote 22.

qBChar[es River Associates report prepared for the National Bu-reau o f S tandards , “Techno log ica l and Economic Assessment ot

Advanced Ceramic Materials, Vol. 2: A Case Study of Ceramics in

Heat Engine Appl icat ions, ” NBS-GCR 84-4760-2, August 1984.qgRICherSon, op. c i t . , foo tnote 4 .


(w 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 110 11 12 1,3 14 15 , I* 1 1 9 21(1 1,

I ,1 \ ~ , I I I ! ,! t j I ; I , ; ! [I ~ I 1 ‘1 ill:ll ’161 l:” 1 ’11 I I Ii

Photo credit: The Garrett Corp

Ceramic turbocharger turbine rotors

elude exhaust port liners, cam followers, andturbocharger components. To date, U.S. firmshave not introduced these products, althoughR&D programs continue.

The United States remains behind Japan inprocuring the advanced production equipmentneeded to produce ceramic turbocharger rotors.U.S. automotive companies do not appear tohave the same level of confidence as the Japanesethat a ceramic turbocharger rotor market will de-velop. In spite of this, U.S. industry is still fund-ing considerable R&D on ceramic turbochargerrotors. One study has estimated that if a ceramicrotor price of$15 can be reached and if perform-ance and reliability are acceptable, a worldwide

market of $60 million could be generated for ce-ramic turbocharger rotors by the year 2000.50

The ceramic turbocharger rotor has a signifi-cance far beyond its contribution to the perform-ance of the engine. it is regarded as a forerun-ner technology to far more ambitious ceramicengines, such as the advanced gas turbine. De-sign, fabrication, and testing methods developedfor the turbocharger rotor are expected to serveas a pattern for subsequent ceramic engine tech-nology efforts.

5’JElaine P. Roth man, “Advanced St ruc tura l Ceramics : Techni-

cal/Economic Process Modeling of Production and a Demand Anal-ysis for Cutting Tools and Turbochargers, ” Materials Systems Lab-oratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, August 1985.


Diesel Engines

There are several levels at which ceramicscould be incorporated in diesel engines, as shownin table 2-9. The first level involves a baselinediesel containing a ceramic turbocharger rotorand discrete ceramic components. The secondlevel adds a ceramic cylinder and piston, andeliminates the cooling system, The ceramic usedat this level would provide high-temperaturestrength, rather than thermal insulation.

The third level would use ceramics for thermalinsulation in the hot section as well as in the ex-haust train. Turbocompounding would be usedto recycle energy from the hot exhaust gases tothe drive train. The fourth level would use ad-vanced minimum friction technology to improvethe performance of the engine. Appropriateaspects of this technology also could be used atlevels one, two, or three.

The four levels place different demands on theceramic materials. Levels one and two requirea low-cost, high-strength material, but without in-suIating properties; sintered silicon nitride or sili-con carbide would be possibilities here. It hasbeen suggested that level two represents the bestcompromise for light-duty ceramic diesels such

as those in automobiles.51 Level three would re-quire an insulating ceramic, probably zirconia ora zirconia-based composite. Level three is thelevel at which the most significant improvementsi n fuel efficiency wouId be realized. However,the current zirconia and alumina-zirconia trans-formation-toughened ceramics are not reliable atthe high stress of the piston cap and do not havea low enough coefficient of friction to withstandthe sliding contact stress of the rings against thecylinder liner. These materials do seem to haveadequate properties, however, for other compo-nents such as the head plate, valve seats, andvalve guides. 52

Emission requirements will likely affect the sizeof the diesel market for passenger cars and trucks.Diesel engines generally produce a high level ofparticulate emissions. The higher operating tem-peratures of the adiabatic diesel could reduceemissions or permit emission control devices tooperate more efficiently. The market for ceram-ics could also be affected by the fact that onemajor candidate for diesel emission control is aceramic particle trap. However, such a trap islikely to be expensive.

JI Katz, op. Cit. r footnote 46.J~Richer50n, op. cit . , fOOt nOte 4.

Table 2-9.—Future Diesel Engine Technology Development Scenario

Technology level Engine configuration Potential ceramic components Potential payoffs

1 State-of-the-art engine,turbocharged

2 Uncooled, non-adiabatic(no water or air cooling)(no turbo-compounding)

Adiabatic turbo-compound

Minimum friction technology(could be combined with 1,2 or 3)

TurbochargerValve train componentsPrechamber, glow plugs

TurbochargerValve train componentsPiston, capCylinders, liners

TurbochargerTurbo-compound wheelValve train componentsPiston, capCylinders, linersExhaust train insulation

Air bearingsHigh-temperature ringsHigh-temperature bearingsNongalling wear surfacesLow friction liquid, lubricant-free

bearings

Improved performanceReduced cost?Early manufacturing experience

Reduced weight - efficiency gainGives option to improve aero-

dynamics - efficiency gainReduced maintenanceReduced engine systems cost?Flexibility of engine placement

Very significant reduction inspecific fuel consumption

Improved aerodynamicsReduced maintenance

Lower specific fuel consumption

SOURCE R Nathan Katz, “Applications of High Performance Ceramics in Heat Engine Design,” Materials Science and Engineering 71:227-249, 1985,

Ch. 2—Ceramics ● 6 7— .

Ceramic coatings may be an alternative tomonolithic ceramics in diesel applications. Zir-conia coatings can be plasma-sprayed onto metalcylinders to provide thermal insulation. In a jointprogram between the U.S. Army Tank Automo-tive Command and Cummins Engine Co., thecombustion zone of a commercial Cummins NHdiesel engine was coated with a zirconia-basedceramic and installed in a 5-ton Army truck,minus the cooling system. The engine accumu-lated over 9,375 miles (1 5,000 kilometers) of suc-cessful road testing. 53 The current state-of-the-a t-tthickness of zirconia coatings is 0.03 to 0.05 inch(0.762 to 1.27 millimeter). It is estimated thatthicknesses of 0.125 inch (3. 175 millimeter) willbe required to provide thermal insulation com-parable to monolithic zirconia.54 The coating isnot as impermeable or as resistant to thermalshock as the monolithic zirconia. However, thecoated metal part has greater strength and tough-ness than the all-ceramic part.

In the past, confusion has arisen because iden-tical configurations of ceramic and metal engineshave not been compared. It is important to sep-arate out the configuration options, such asturbocharging, turbocompounding, heat recov-ery, cooling, etc., from the material options toisolate the benefits of the use of ceramics. Fail-ure to do this has led to overestimation of thebenefits of ceramics. For instance, a recent studyof a ceramic diesel design funded by the Depart-ment of Energy indicates that:

. . . a practical zirconia-coated configuration witha cooled metal liner, intercooled, with combinedturbocompounding and Rankine cycle exhaustheat recovery{ provides a 26 percent increase inthermal efficiency over a metallic, cooled, tur-bocharged, intercooled, baseline engine. 55

However, the bulk of the performance im-provement was attributed to the turbocom-pounding and the Rankine cycle exhaust heat re-covery. Only 5.1 percent was attributed to theimproved thermal insulation. Recent work at Ford

‘] Katz, op. ctt,, Iootnote 46.“)’BJ)] Marrcl)er. Cummin\ En~lne Co,, personal c CJmmunic at Ion,

Augu\t 1986.“T. ,Morel, et ~1., ‘ ‘lMet hods tor Heat Tra n ster and T herma I Anal-

Y ~r~ ~1 [jtomo[ii tJ T<>< /l-ysis ot lnsulateci Dwwl\, ” Pro( eedlng.$ of the -nolog~, Dc’y c’lopment ~-(~ntr,]ctor$ Coord/nat/on ,~leeting ~ IXarhorn,JM I Soc Iety of ,Automotive Engineers, March 1986).

Motor Co. also showed a 5- to 9-percent increasein fuel efficiency in an uncooled test engine fittedwith ceramic inserts, compared to the baselinewater-cooled design. 56

Charles River Associates predicts that the un-cooled ceramic diesel engine system will be thefirst to be commercialized. 57 It projects that theinitial introduction will be in the late 1980s toearly 1990s, and could account for 5 percent ofnew engines manufactured in 1995.

This projection is more optimistic than theabove discussion would imply. Zirconia materi-als do not yet exist that can be used for level threetechnology, wherein the greatest fuel efficienciesare expected. It remains to be seen whether theelimination of the cooling system will providesufficient incentives to U.S. automakers to com-mercialize level two ceramic technology.

Japan in particular has very active researchprograms both in material and diesel enginedevelopment. IsUzU, the strongest ceramic engineadvocate of all of the Japanese auto companies,has reported more than 300 miles (480 kilome-ters) of road testing and is projecting 1990 pro-duction, 58 Toyota has plans to produce an all ce-ramic diesel, using injection molded and sinteredsilicon nitride by 1992. Every part will be prooftested. The largest Japanese automakers all maintain extensive research activities in the area oceramic engines.59

Automotive Gas Turbines

The major incentive for using ceramics in tur-bines is the possibility of operating the engine atturbine inlet temperatures up to about 2500° F(1371° C), compared with superalloy designs, thatare limited to about 1900° F (1038° C) withoutcooling. This temperature difference translatesinto an increased thermal efficiency from around


40 percent to nearly 50 percent.60 Power in-creases of 40 percent and fuel savings of around10 percent have been demonstrated in researchengines containing ceramic components.61 Otherpotential advantages include reduced engine sizeand weight, reduced exhaust emissions, and thecapability to burn alternative fuels, such aspowdered coal.

Structural ceramics represent an enabling tech-nology for the automotive gas turbine; i.e., ce-ramics are the key to designing and manufactur-ing an automotive turbine that can compete incost or performance with current gasoline anddiesel engines. Extensive design, materials, andengine efforts have been made over the past 15years in the United States, Europe, and Japan.These efforts have resulted in significant progressin design methods for brittle materials, the prop-erties of silicon nitride and silicon carbide, fabri-cation technology for larger and more complexceramic components, NDE and proof testing, andengine assembly and testing.

Ceramic components have been operated inprototype turbine engines in West Germany,Sweden, Japan, and the United States. The testsin the United States have involved highly in-strumented development engines in test cells. 62

Current programs have achieved over 100 hoursof operation at temperatures above 2000° F(1093° C).63 These achievements, although im-pressive, are still far from the performance re-quired of a practical gas turbine engine, whichwill involve continuous operation above 2500°F (1 3710 C). The limiting component in these en-gines appears to be the rotor, which must spinat about 100,000 rpm at these temperatures. Themost reliable rotors available have generally beenmanufactured in Japan.64 The target automotive

60John Mason, Garrett Corp., presentation at the Society of Au-

tomotive Engineers International Congress and Exposition, Detroit,Ml, February 1986.

61 David W, Richerson and K.M. johansen, ‘‘Ceramic Gas Tur-bine Engine Demonstration Program, ” final report, DARPA/Navycontract NOO024-76-C-5352, May 1982,

b’David W, Richerson, “Evolution in the U.S. of Ceramic Tech-nology for Turbine Engines, American Ceramics Society Bulletin64(2):282-286, 1985.

b~Mason, op. cit.bJRic hard Helms, General Motors Corp., presentation at the

Society of Automotive Engineers International Congress and Expo-sltlon, Detroit, Ml, February 1986.

gas turbine engine is designed to provide about100 horsepower with fuel efficiencies of about43 miles per gallon for a 3,000-pound automo-bile.65

The automotive gas turbine would be a morerevolutionary application of ceramics than thediesel. The diesel engine is a familiar technologyand incorporation of ceramics can occur instages, consistent with an evolutionary design.The gas turbine, on the other hand, representsa completely new design requiring completelynew tooling and equipment for manufacture, Be-cause of the remaining technical barriers to ce-ramic gas turbines and the fact that they repre-sent a complete departure from current designs,it is unlikely that a ceramic gas turbine passen-ger car could be produced commercially before2010. 66 In view of this long development time,it appears possible that this propulsion systemcould be overtaken by other technologies, includ-ing the ceramic diesel. One factor that wouldfavor the turbine engine would be dramaticallyincreased fuel costs. In the case that traditionalfuels became scarce or expensive, the turbine’scapability to burn alternative fuels could makeit the powerplant of choice in the future.

In summary, the outlook for ceramic heat en-gines for automobiles appears to be highly un-certain. The performance advantages of ceramicengines are more apparent in the larger, moreheavily loaded engines in trucks or tanks thanthey are in automobiles. Ceramic gas turbines andadiabatic diesel designs do not scale down in sizeas efficiently as reciprocating gasoline engines. 67

Thus, if the trend toward smaller automobilescontinues, reciprocating gasoline engines are likelyto be favored over advanced ceramic designs,

The prevailing approach of U.S. automakers–that of waiting to see if a clear market niche forceramics develops before investing heavily in thetechnology—is likely to mean that previous fore-casts of the U.S. ceramics heat engine market,which cluster in the $1 to $5 billion range by the

b5Ka{z, op. cit., footnote 46.bbRicherson, op. cit., fOO{rlOte 4.

bzu .s. congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Increased Au-tomobile Fuel Efficiency and Synthetic Fuels: Alternatives for Re-ducing Oil Imports, OTA-E-185 (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, September 1982), p. 145.

—


2. Turbine Shroud 3. Turbine Rotor

4. Inner Diffuser HSG 5. Outer Diffuser HSG 6. Turbine Backshroud

9. Combustor Baffle

10. Bolts 11. Regenerator Shield 12. Alumina-Silica Insulation

Photo credit: The Garrett Corp.

Prototype ceramic gas turbine engine components


year 2000, are too optimistic. On the other hand,the Japanese approach, in which ceramics aresteadily being incorporated in engines on a moreexperimental basis, reflects greater faith in the fu-ture of the technology. If a substantial automo-tive market for ceramics does develop, heat en-gine applications for ceramics would be one ofthe most highly leveraged in terms of economicbenefits and jobs.68 69

Military Applications and Production

Production of ceramics for military applicationsis projected to expand substantially during thenext 25 years.70 Near-term growth is expected forarmor, radomes and infrared windows, bearingsfor missiles, and rocket nozzles (carbon-carboncomposites and ceramic-coated carbon-carboncomposites). New applications are likely to belaser mirrors, gun barrel liners, rail gun compo-nents, and turbine and diesel engine compo-nents. Ceramics and ceramic composites in manycases offer an enabling capacity that will lead toapplications or performance that could not other-wise be achieved. Some of the resulting technol-ogy will be suitable for commercial spinoffs ifacceptable levels of fabrication cost and quality-control cost can be attained.

Diesels

In military diesels, ceramics provide much thesame benefits as in commercial diesels. Of par-ticular interest to the military is the eliminationof the cooling system to achieve smaller pack-aging volume and greater reliability. Considerableprogress has been made through the use of ce-ramic coatings. Monolithic ceramics have also

been tried, but have been successful only in afew components and still require further devel-opment. A military diesel with minimal coolingachieved primarily with ceramic coatings couldbe produced by 1991. Engines containing moreextensive ceramic components are not likely toappear before about 1995 to 2000.71

Turbines

Turbine engines are in widespread military usefor aircraft propulsion, auxiliary power units, andother applications. They are being considered forpropulsion of tanks, transports, and other mili-tary vehicles. Ceramics have the potential toenable advanced turbines to achieve major im-provements in performance: as much as 40 per-cent more power, and fuel savings of 30 to 60percent.72 In addition, they offer lower weight,longer range, decreased critical cross section, anddecreased detectability.

Design and material technologies are availablein the United States to produce high-performanceceramic-based turbine engines for short-life ap-plications such as missiles and drones. Further-more, it appears that these engines have poten-tial for lower cost than current superalloy-basedshort-life engines.73

Longer-life engines will require considerabledevelopment to demonstrate adequate reliabil-ity. This development must address both designand materials in an iterative fashion. Although theuse of ceramic thermal barrier coatings in metalturbines is well under way, new turbines designedspecifically for ceramics are not likely to be avail-able before the year 2000,

bgLarry f?. Johnson, Arvind T.S. Teotia, and Lawrence G. HiII, “AStructural Ceramic Research Program: A Preliminary Economic Anal-ysis, ” Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/CNSV-38, 1983.

bgcharles River Associates, op. cit., footnote 48.zORicherSon, op. Cit., footnote 4.

71 Ibid.

721 bid.731 bid.

FUTURE TRENDS IN CERAMICS


Major improvements in the fracture properties that do not fail catastrophically and thereforeof ceramics have been obtained by reinforcing have mechanical properties that are very differ-matrices with continuous, high-strength fibers. ent from those of monolithic ceramics, as shownOptimum microstructure result in composites i n figure 2-4. The most developed composites to

Ch. 2—Ceramics s 65

Figure 2-4.– Load-Deflection Curve for a NicalonFiber-Reinforced Silicon Nitride Composite

9 0 0an

~

u) 700mL

500 m

? 300 “p2UI

o 0.6 1.8 3.0

Extreme fiber strain (%)Dotted line indicates point at which fracture would occurwithout fiber reinforcement.SOURCE: Joseph N. Panzarino, Norton Co., Personal communication, Sept. 3,

1987.

date are s i l i con carb ide f iber - re in forced g lass-

c e r a m i c m a t r i c e s .

Recent analysis suggests that f ibers resist the

opening of a matrix crack by frictional fo rces atthe matrix-fiber interface.74 One of the importantresults is that the strength of the composite be-comes independent of preexisting flaw size. Thismeans that strength becomes a well-definedproperty of the material, rather than a statisticaldistribution of values based on the flaw popu-lations.

CMCs present an opportunity to design com-posites for specific engineering applications. Thiswill require a detailed understanding of themicromechanics of failure and explicit quantita-tive relations between mechanical properties andmicrostructural characteristics. The most impor-tant breakthrough in ceramic composites willcome with the development of new high-temper-ature fibers that can be processed with a widerrange of matrix materials.

New Processes for Ceramics

Several forming and sintering techniques mayoffer the potential for significant improvementsin the microstructure of ceramics produced frompowders. These include advanced casting meth-

74 D.B . Marsha l l and A .G. Evans , “The Mechan i cs o f Ma t r i x C rack -

ing in Br i t t le-Matr ix Fiber Composi tes,” Acta Meta//urgica33(1 1):2013-2014, 1985.

ods, such as open casting and centrifugal cast-ing; and such new heating methods as microwaveand plasma sistering.75

In the future, however, chemical approachesto the fabrication of ceramics will probably bepreferred to the traditional methods of grindingand pressing powders. Chemical routes to ceram-ics include such techniques as sol-gel process-ing, chemical vapor infiltration of ceramic fiberpreforms, and in-situ formation of metal-ceramiccomposites by reactions between liquid metalsand appropriate gases.76 77 These techniques af-ford greater control over the purity of the ceramicand over its microstructure. it has been estimatedthat 50 percent of structural ceramics will beprocessed chemically by the year 2010.78

Biotechnology

Structural ceramics could have a significant in-teraction with the developing field of biotechnol-ogy in the future. Ceramics could be used exten-sively in fermenters, and they are likely to beimportant in a broad range of product separationtechnologies.

Fermenters

Most current fermenters are made of316 gradestainless steel .79 Steel fermenters suffer from sev-eral disadvantages, including contamination ofthe cultures with metal ions, corrosion causedby cell metabolizes or reagents, and leaks aroundgaskets and seals during sterilization and temper-ature cycling.

Glass-lined steel bowls are sometimes used,especially for cell cuItures, which are more sen-sitive to contamination than bacterial cultures.However, the thermal expansion mismatch be-

TSRichard po~r, Ceramics Processing Research Laboratory, MIT,

personal communication, April 1987.Tssee for example David W. Johnson, Jr., “Sol-Gel Processing of

Ceramics and Glass,” American Ceramic Society L?u//etin 64(1 2):1597-1602, 1985.

zTCommonly ca[l~ the Lanxide process, this technique has re-

cently been extended to permit the fabrication of ceramic fiber-reinforced composites, See Materials and Processing Repofl, MJTPress, vol. 2, June 1987.

Z13R. Nathan Katz, presentation at the Society of Automotive Engi-neers International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, Ml, Febru-ary 1986.

zgRichard F. Geoghegan, E.1. du Pent de Nemours & Co., per-

sonal communication, August 1986.


tween the glass lining and the metal causes prob-lems during steam sterilization.

Ceramics offer a solution to these problems be-cause of their chemical stability and low thermalexpansion. Ceramics could be used in the bowland agitator, as well as in the peripheral plumb-ing joints and agitator shaft seal to preventleaking.

Separation Technology

Separation and purification of the products ofcell and bacterial cultures is a key aspect of bio-technology. In general, the separation techniquesare based less on filtration than on active inter-actions between a solid phase and the liquid mix-ture, as in chromatography. For instance, biolog-ically produced insulin is now being purified witha chromatographic process based on a modifiedsilica material. 80 Silica or alumina particles canalso be used as a solid support for attaching mon-oclonal antibodies, which bind to specific proteinsand effect a separation by affinity chromatogra-phy.81

The strength and hardness of the ceramics arekey to the avoidance of deformation of the ce-ramic particles under conditions of high through-put.82 In the future, the most efficient processes

could be hybrids based on both filtration andchromatography. 83 As these processes are scaled

aojoseph ). Kirkland, El. du Pent de Nemours & CO., Personal

communication, August 1986.al George WhiteSides, Department of Chemistry, Harvard U niver-

sity, personal communication, August 1986.821 bld .

83Mlche[ [e BetrldO, Celanese Research Corp., perSOnal Commu-

nication, August 1986.

up to production units, there will probably be alarge increase in the demand for specially modi-fied silica and alumina column packing materials.

Energy Production

Power Turbines

The performance requirements for power tur-bines are much greater than those for automo-tive gas turbines.84 Power turbines must have alifetime of 100,000 hours, compared with about3,000 hours for the auto turbine. In addition, theconsequences of power turbine failure are muchgreater. In light of these facts, a recent report hasconcluded that power turbines will be commer-cialized after automotive gas turbines. 85

Although some of the processing technologydeveloped for the auto turbine may be applica-ble to power turbines, the scale-up from a rotorhaving a 6-inch diameter to one having a muchlarger diameter may require completely newfabrication techniques. The larger ceramic struc-tures may also require different NDE techniquesto ensure reliability.

Thus, use of monolithic ceramics in the criti-cal hot-section components of power turbines isnot anticipated in the next 25 years. However,ceramics may find applications in less criticalstructures, such as combustor linings. in addition,ceramic coatings could be used to augment thehigh-temperature resistance of cooled superalloyrotor blades,86

sAJohnson and Rowcliffe, o p . Cit., footnote 43

851 bid.Mlbid.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES

In fiscal year 1987, the U.S. Government spentabout $65 million on structural ceramics R&D (ta-ble 2-10). R&D expenditures in private industrymay be roughly comparable.87 88 DOE and DoDspent the largest proportions, at 55 and 28 per-

cent, respectively. The following hierarchy ofR&D priorities are based on the opportunitiesidentified above. These are then correlated withthe actual spending on structural ceramics R&Din fiscal year 1985.

aTCharles River Associates, op. cit., footnote 48, p. 38.88 A recently completed survey by the United States Advanced

Ceramics Association places the private industry R&D investments

in all advanced ceramics, including structural and electronic ce-ramics, at $153 million in 1986, somewhat greater than the totalgovernment expenditure of $100 to $125 million.


Table 2-10.—Structural Ceramic Technology: Federal Government Funded R&D (in millions of dollars)

FY 1983

Department of Energy:Conservation and renewable energy:

Vehicle propulsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4Advanced materials , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2Industrial programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0Energy utilization research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5

Fossil energy:Advanced research and technology development . . . . . . . 1.0

Energy research:Basic energy science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0

NASA:Lewis Research Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0

National Science Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9National Bureau of Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Department of Defense:

Defense ARPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7U. S. Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0U.S. Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7U.S. Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2

FY 1984 FY1985 FY1986 FY1987

12.75.12.31.5

1.1

4.4

2.53.3

8.23.46.01.3— —

11.96.01.71.8

1.5

4.6

5.43.6

9.44.72.51.4

10,08.71.51.8

1.2

4.5

4 .5a

3.62.2

10.04.74 . 4b

2.3

12.014.0

1.92.0

1.9

4.2

4 .6a

3.73.0

7,35.13.6C

1.9

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.6 51.8 54.5 59.4 65.2a lncludes $1 6 million for Manpower Salaries.b lncludes $40 million for TACOM Dieselc lncludes $20 million for TACOM Diesel

SOURCE’ Robert B. Schulz, Department of Energy.

Very Important

Processing Science

There is a great need for generic research tosupport the development of practical manufac-turing technologies within industry. The agendafor such research is long, but includes such topicsas:

● development of near-net-shape processes;● development of pure, reproducible pow-

ders, whiskers, and fibers that can be formedand densified with a minimum of intermedi-ate steps; role of solution chemistry in pow-der preparation and control of interfaceproperties in CMCs;

● development of practical in-process inspec-tion devices and techniques to identify prob-lems at the earliest possible stage in theprocess;

● iterative development of new equipmentsuch as hot isostatic presses (HIPs) and mul-tistage processes such as sinter-HIP, with em-phasis on scaling up to commercially viablesize; and

● understanding of the relationships betweencoating process variables and final proper-ties and performance of ceramic coatings.


Many of the applications for ceramics men-tioned above require long-term performance insevere environments. To develop higher temper-ature, corrosion-resistant materials, it is necessaryto understand the long-term behavior of candi-date ceramic materials in the anticipated envi-ronments:

●

●

●

For heat engine applications, the general re-quirement is to understand the mechanicaland chemical behavior of advanced ceram-ics such as silicon nitride, silicon carbide, zir-conia, and CMCs based on these materialsin environments of 1000° to 1400° C (1 8320to 2552° F) in air, carbon monoxide, and car-bon dioxide.In ceramic wear parts, it is necessary to un-derstand the interrelationships of wear, ero-sion, and toughness in the presence of lu-bricating fluids and gases. Generally, wearparts include hard materials such as tungstencarbide, titanium diboride, and materials thathave good lubrication characteristics, suchas silicon nitride.Because heat exchangers generally fail as aresult of slow corrosion at high temperatures,it is important to understand the chemical


processes of corrosion in such environmentsas salts of sodium, potassium, magnesium,calcium, vanadium, and mixed metals. Inaddition to existing materials (e. g., siliconcarbide, cordierite, and zirconium silicate),newer materials, including silicon nitride andCMCs, should be investigated. Corrosion-resistant ceramic coatings may become im-portant here.

● Considering the large size of the potentialmarkets in bioceramics, it is critical to un-derstand the long-term effects of body fluidson chemical structure and mechanical prop-erties. In view of the many years that ceramicimplants must serve without failure, the in-teraction between slow crack growth and thebody environment should be investigated.

. The long-term environmental stability of ad-vanced chemicalIy bonded ceramics is cru-cial to their effectiveness in construction andother applications. The deterioration of theproperties of some advanced cements in thepresence of moisture remains a problem,and the chemical degradation of the fiber in-terface in reinforced cements and concreteshas limited the structural uses of these ma-terials.

Reliability

No factor is more important to the success ofceramics in all of the applications discussed thanreliability. Because the performance specifica-tions and environment of each application aredifferent, it is necessary to establish the mostappropriate and cost-effective NDE methods foreach one.

To distinguish between critical flaws and harm-less flaws, models need to be developed for pre-dicting the service life of ceramic parts contain-ing various kinds of flaws. Such models mustdepend heavily on information derived from thecategories of environmental behavior of ceram-ics and CMC failure mechanisms discussed above.Beyond a dependence on intrinsic flaws in thematerial, however, service life also depends onthe location and nature of the flaw within thestructure itself. it is not sufficient to characterizethe behavior of a coupon of the material fromwhich a structure is made; either the structure

itself must be tested or additional models mustbe available to predict the effects of a particularflaw on a particular structure.

Interphase in CMCs

The interphase between ceramic fiber and ma-trix is critical to the static strength, toughness, andlong-term stability of the CMC. Very little is knownabout the relationship between the properties ofthe interphase and these overall CMC properties.The capability to modify the surface chemistryof ceramic fibers and whiskers to provide opti-mum compatibility between reinforcement andmatrix could yield remarkable improvements inceramic performance and reliability.

Important

Joining of Ceramics

In most applications, ceramics are not usedalone; rather, ceramic components are part oflarger assemblies. Therefore, the ceramic mustbe joined to more conventional materials in theassembly to function properly. Broad research onjoining of ceramics to metals, glasses, and otherceramics could have a decisive impact on futureuse of monolithic ceramics, coatings, and CMCs.

The key to joining is an understanding of thesurface properties of the two materials and of theinterface between them. In general, the interfaceis a critical point of weakness in discrete ceramiccomponents such as those in heat engines, in ce-ramic coatings on metal substrates, and in ce-ramic fibers in CMCs.

Principal needs in this area are in the strength-ening and toughening of joints, an understand-ing of their high-temperature chemistry, and im-proved resistance to corrosion in the variousenvironments of interest. As with solution meth-ods in powder preparation, chemistry will makea crucial contribution in this area.

Tribology of Ceramics

Tribology, the study of friction, wear, and lu-brication of contiguous surfaces in relative mo-tion, is of key importance in terms of ceramicwear parts and heat engine components. Lubri-


cation is a particularly serious problem in ceramicengines because of their high operating temper-atures.

Ordinary engine oils cannot be used aboveabout 350°F (177°C). For operating tempera-tures of 500° to 700°F (260° to 371° C), syntheticliquids such as polyol esters are available, but areextremely expensive and require further devel-opment. In a low-heat rejection (adiabatic) ce-ramic engine, cylinder liner temperatures mayreach 1000° to 1700° F (538° to 927° C), depend-ing on the insuIating effectiveness of major en-gine components. For this elevated temperatureregime, synthetic lubricants cannot be used ef-fectively.

One approach to this problem is to use solidlubricants that would become liquid at elevatedtemperatures; however, no such lubricants existfor use in the environments envisioned (high-temperature, corrosive gases). Moreover, the dis-tribution of solid lubricant around the engine isa persistent problem .89

A second method involves modifications of thesurface of the component to produce self-lubri-cation. The lubricant can be introduced throughion implantation directly into the surface (to adepth of several micrometers) of the component;it then diffuses to the surface to reduce friction.Some metal or boron oxides show promise as lu-bricants. Alternatively it is possible to use surfacecoatings of extremely hard ceramics such as thecarbides and nitrides of zirconium, titanium, orhafnium, without any lubrication. At present,these techniques all lead to sliding friction coeffi-cients that are roughly four times higher thanthose achieved at low temperatures with engineoils.90 Further research is clearly needed.

Failure Mechanisms in CMCs

CMCs offer the best solution to the problemof the brittleness of ceramics. However, this fieldis still in its infancy, and research is character-ized by a very empirical approach to mixing,forming, densification, and characterization of

fiber-powder combinations. Fundamental under-standing of the failure mechanisms in CMCswould provide guidance for development of new,tougher ceramics. This would include investiga-tion of: multiple toughening techniques, such astransformation toughening and whisker reinforce-ment; the role of interphase properties in frac-ture; and failure mechanisms in continuous-fiberCMCs.

Desirable

Chemically Bonded Ceramics

Chemically bonded ceramics (CBCs) offer greatpromise for low-cost, net-shape fabrication ofstructures in such applications as wear parts andconstruction. Recent improvements in the ten-sile strength of CBCs suggest that the limits of thiskey engineering property are far from being real-ized. Further research is required in reduction offlaw size, long-term stability in various environ-ments, and the properties of the interphase infiber-reinforced cements and concretes.

* * *

Table 2-11 shows that the actual structural ce-ramics R&D spending in fiscal year 1985 for allgovernment agencies corresponds roughly withthe priority categories recommended above, al-though specific projects differ. Processing re-search accounted for the lion’s share, with 76percent. No separate estimate was available ofresearch on the interphase in CMCs; a portionof this work is included under CMC fabrication,listed here as a subcategory of processing. Also,no separate figure was obtained for Federal ex-penditures on advanced cements and concretes.In fiscal year 1983, however, total U.S. Govern-ment and industry funding of cement researchwas estimated at only $1 million, compared witha portland cement sales volume over $1 billion. 91

Assuming that the current breakdown of Federalceramics research is similar to that in fiscal year1985, a comparison of table 2-11 with the pri-orities listed above suggests that greater empha-sis should be placed on joining, tribology, andcement-based materials.

8gManfred Kar-rllnsky, Surface T r e a t m e n t science I n t e r n a t i o n a l ,

p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n , A u g u s t 1 9 8 6 .

901 bld

91 National Research Council, Transportation Research Board, op.

c i t . , foo tnote 30.


Table 2-11.– Breakout of the Fiscal Year 1985Structural Ceramics Budget According to

the R&D Priorities Cited in the Text

FY 1985Research area budget percentage

Processing:Powder synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Monolithic fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Composite fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Component design and testing . . . . 4Coatings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Machining. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Environmental behavior . . . .

Reliability:Modeling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Time dependent behaviorNondestructive evaluationMicrostructure evaluation

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Interphase in composites . .

Tribology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Joining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fracture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . 4

. . . . . . . . . < 1

. . . . . . . 76

. . . . . . . . . 4

. . . . . . . . . 2

. . . . . . . . . 1

. . . . . . . . . 3

. . . . . . . . . 4

. . . . . . . . . 10

. . . . . . . . . no separate figure

. . . . . . . . . 2

. . . . . . . . . 3

. . . . . . . . . 5

. . . . . . . . . <1

. . . . . . . . . 100%SOURCE: S.J. Dapkunas, National Bureau of Standards, unpublished survey, 1985

Chapter 3

Polymer MatrixComposites

Page● 73. 74. 76. 76. 77. 77. 78. 79. 79. 79. 81. 82. 82. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 86. 87

89. 90. 90. 90. 91. 91. 91. 92. 93. 93. 94. 95

Page. 75. 76

. 77

. 83

Page. 79

.. 81. 93

Chapter 3


FINDINGS

Polymer matrix composites (PMCs) are com-prised of a variety of short or continuous fibersbound together by an organic polymer matrix.Unlike a ceramic matrix composite (CMC), inwhich the reinforcement is used primarily to im-prove the fracture toughness, the reinforcementin a PMC provides high strength and stiffness. ThePMC is designed so that the mechanical loads towhich the structure is subjected in service aresupported by the reinforcement. The function ofthe matrix is to bond the fibers together and totransfer loads between them.

Polymer matrix composites are often dividedinto two categories: reinforced plastics, and “ad-vanced composites. ” The distinction is based onthe level of mechanical properties (usually strengthand stiffness); however, there is no unambiguousline separating the two. Reinforced plastics, whichare relatively inexpensive, typically consist ofpolyester resins reinforced with low-stiffness glassfibers. Advanced composites, which have beenin use for only about 15 years, primarily in theaerospace industry, have superior strength andstiffness, and are relatively expensive. Advancedcomposites are the focus of this assessment.

Chief among the advantages of PMCs is theirlight weight coupled with high stiffness andstrength along the direction of the reinforcement.This combination is the basis of their usefulnessi n aircraft, automobiles, and other moving struc-tures. Other desirable properties include superiorcorrosion and fatigue resistance compared to me-tals. Because the matrix decomposes at high tem-peratures, however, current PMCs are limited toservice temperatures below about 600° F (316° C).

Experience over the past 15 years with advancedcomposite structures in military aircraft indicatesthat reliable PMC structures can be fabricated.However, their high cost remains a major bar-rier to more widespread use in commercial ap-plications. Most advanced PMCs today are fabri-cated by a laborious process called lay-up. This

typically involves placement of sequential layersof polymer-impregnated fiber tapes on a moldsurface, followed by heating under pressure tocure the lay-up into an integrated structure. Al-though automation is beginning to speed up thisprocess, production rates are still too slow to besuitable for high-volume, low-cost industrial ap-plications such as automotive production lines.New fabrication methods that are much fasterand cheaper will be required before PMCs cansuccessfully compete with metals in these appli-cat ions.

Applications and MarketOpportunities

Aerospace applications of advanced compos-ites account for about 50 percent of current sales.Sporting goods, such as golf clubs and tennisrackets, account for another 25 percent. Thesporting goods market is considered mature, withprojected annual growth rates of 3 percent. Au-tomobiles and industrial equipment round outthe current list of major users of PMCs, with a25 percent share.

The next major challenge for PMCs will be usein large military and commercial transport aircraft.PMCs currently comprise about 3 percent of thestructural weight of commercial aircraft such asthe Boeing 757, but could eventually account formore than 65 percent. Because fuel savings area major reason for the use of PMCs in commer-cial aircraft, fuel prices must rise to make themcompetitive.

The largest volume opportunity for PMCs is inthe automobile. PMCs currently are in limitedproduction in body panels, drive shafts, and leafsprings. By the late 1990s, PMC unibody struc-tures could be introduced in limited production.Additional near-term markets for PMCs includemedical implants, reciprocating industrial ma-chinery, storage and transportation of corrosivechemicals, and military vehicles and weapons.

73


Beyond the turn of the century, PMCs couldbe used extensively in construction applicationssuch as bridges, buildings, and manufacturedhousing. Because of their resistance to corrosion,they may also be attractive for marine structures.Realization of these opportunities will depend ondevelopment of cheaper materials and on designsthat take advantage of compounding benefits ofPMCs, such as reduced weight and increaseddurability. In space, a variety of composites couldbe used in the proposed aerospace plane, andPMCs are being considered for the tubular frameof the NASA space station.


Unlike most structural ceramics, PMCs havecompiled an excellent service record, particularlyin military aircraft. However, in many cases thetechnology has outrun the basic understanding

of these materials. To generate improved mate-rials and to design and manufacture PMCs morecost-effectively, the following needs should be ad-dressed:

●

●

●

●

Processing Science: Development of new,low-cost fabrication methods will be criticalfor PMCs. An essential prerequisite to this isa sound scientific basis for understandinghow process variables affect final properties.Impact Resistance: This property is crucialto the reliability and durability of PMCstructures.Delamination: A growing body of evidencesuggests that this is the single most impor-tant mode of damage propagation in PMCswith Iaminar structures.Interphase: The poorly understood interfa-cial region between the fiber and matrix hasa critical influence on PMC behavior.

INTRODUCTION

Unlike a ceramic matrix composite, in whichthe reinforcement is used primarily to improvethe fracture toughness, the reinforcement in apolymer matrix composite provides strength andstiffness that are lacking in the matrix. The com-posite is designed so that the mechanical loadsto which the structure is subjected in service aresupported by the reinforcement. The function ofthe relatively weak matrix is to bond the fiberstogether and to transfer loads between them, Aswith CMCs, the reinforcement may consist of par-ticles, whiskers, fibers, or fabrics, as shown in fig-ure 3-1.

PMCs are often divided into two categories:reinforced plastics, and so-called advanced com-posites, The distinction is based on the level ofmechanical properties (usually strength and stiff-ness); however, there is no unambiguous lineseparating the two. Reinforced plastics, which arerelatively inexpensive, typically consist of poly-ester resins reinforced with low-stiffness glassfibers (E-glass). They have been in use for 30 to

40 years in applications such as boat hulls, cor-rugated sheet, pipe, automotive panels, andsporting goods.

Advanced composites, which have been in usefor only about 15 years, primarily in the aero-space industry, consist of fiber and matrix com-binations that yield superior strength and stiffness.They are relatively expensive and typically con-tain a large percentage of high-performance con-tinuous fibers, such as high-stiffness glass (S-glass),graphite, aramid, or other organic fibers. Thisassessment primarily focuses on market oppor-tunities for advanced composites.

Less than 2 percent of the material used in thereinforced plastics/PMCs industry goes into ad-vanced composites for use in high-technology ap-plications such as aircraft and aerospace.1 In

‘These advanced composites are primarily epoxy matrices rein-forced with carbon fibers. Reginald B. Stoops, R.B. Stoops& Asso-ciates, Newport, Rl, “Manufacturing Requirements of Polymer Ma-trix Composites, ” contractor report for OTA, December 1985.

Ch. 3—Polymer Matrix Composites . 7 5

Figure 3-1.—Composite Reinforcement Types

- — — - -

1985, the worldwide sales of advanced compositematerials reached over $2 billion. The total valueof fabricated parts in the United States was about$1.3 billion split among three major industry cat-egories: 1) aerospace (50 percent), 2) sportsequipment (25 percent), and 3) industrial and au-tomotive (25 percent).2

It has been estimated that advanced compos-ites consumption could grow at the relatively highrate of about 15 percent per year in the next fewyears, with the fastest growing sector being theaerospace industry, at 22 percent. By 1995, con-sumption is forecast to be 110 million poundswith a value (in 1985 dollars) of about $6.5 bil-lion. By the year 2000, consumption is forecastto be 200 million pounds, valued at about $12billion.3

Based on these forecasts, it is evident that thecurrent and near-term cost per pound of advancedcomposite structure is roughly $60 per pound.This compares with a value of about $1 per poundfor steel or $1.50 per pound for glass fiber-rein-forced plastic (FRP). If these forecasts are correct,it is clear that over this period (to the year 2000),advanced composites will be used primarily inhigh value-added applications that can supportthis level of material costs. However, use of PMCscan lead to cost savings in manufacturing andservice. Thus, the per-pound cost is rarely a use-ful standard for comparing PMCs with traditionalmaterials.

SOURCE: Carl Zweben, General Electric Co

2Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Ad-vanced Materials, ” a contractor report prepared for OTA, March1987.

J“Industry News, ” SAMPE Journal, July/August 1985, p. 89.


CONSTITUENTS OF POLYMER MATRIX COMPOSITES

Matrix

The matrix properties determine the resistanceof the PMC to most of the degradative processesthat eventually cause failure of the structure.These processes include impact damage, delami-nation, water absorption, chemical attack, andhigh-temperature creep. Thus, the matrix is typi-cally the weak link in the PMC structure.

The matrix phase of commercial PMCs can beclassified as either thermoset or thermoplastic.The general characteristics of each matrix typeare shown in figure 3-2; however, recently de-veloped matrix resins have begun to change thispicture, as noted below.

Thermoses

Thermosetting resins include polyesters, vinyl-esters, epoxies, bismaleimides, and polyamides.Thermosetting polyesters are commonly used infiber-reinforced plastics, and epoxies make upmost of the current market for advanced com-posites resins. Initially, the viscosity of these re-sins is low; however, thermoset resins undergochemical reactions that crosslink the polymerchains and thus connect the entire matrix to-gether in a three-dimensional network. This proc-ess is called curing. Thermoses, because of theirthree-dimensional crosslinked structure, tend tohave high dimensional stability, high-temperatureresistance, and good resistance to solvents. Re-cently, considerable progress has been made inimproving the toughness and maximum operat-ing temperatures of thermosets. A

4See, for instance, Aerospace America, May 1986, p. 22.

Thermoplastics

Thermoplastic resins, sometimes called engi-neering plastics, include some polyesters, poly -etherimide, polyamide imide, polyphenylene sul-fide, polyether-etherketone (PEEK), and liquidcrystal polymers. They consist of long, discretemolecules that melt to a viscous liquid at theprocessing temperature, typically 500” to 700”F (260° to 3710 C), and, after forming, are cooledto an amorphous, semicrystalline, or crystallinesolid. The degree of crystallinity has a strong ef-fect on the final matrix properties. Unlike the cur-ing process of thermosetting resins, the process-ing of thermoplastics is reversible, and, by simplyreheating to the process temperature, the resincan be formed into another shape if desired.Thermoplastics, although generally inferior tothermoses in high-temperature strength andchemical stability, are more resistant to crackingand impact damage. However, it should be notedthat recently developed high-performance ther-moplastics, such as PEEK, which have a semi-crystalline microstructure, exhibit excellent high-temperature strength and solvent resistance.

Thermoplastics offer great promise for the fu-ture from a manufacturing point of view, becauseit is easier and faster to heat and cool a materialthan it is to cure it. This makes thermoplastic ma-trices attractive to high-volume industries suchas the automotive industry. Currently, thermo-plastics are used primarily with discontinuous-fiber reinforcements such as chopped glass or car-bon/graphite. However, there is great potentialfor high-performance thermoplastics reinforcedwith continuous fibers. For example, thermoplas-

Figure 3-2.—Comparison of General Characteristics of Thermoset and Thermoplastic Matrices

Process Process Use SolventResin type temperature time temperature resistance Toughness

Thermoset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Low I High I High I I High 1 LowToughened thermoset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lightly crosslinked thermoplastic. . . . . t 1 t t 1Thermoplastic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . High 1 Low I Low Low I High I

SOURCE: Darrel R. Tenney, NASA Langley Research Center.

—

Ch. 3—Polymer Matrix Composites ● 7 7

tics could be used in place of epoxies in the com-posite structure of the next generation of fighteraircraft.

Reinforcement

The continuous reinforcing fibers of advancedcomposites are responsible for their high strengthand stiffness. The most important fibers in cur-rent use are glass, graphite, and aramid. Otherorganic fibers, such as oriented polyethylene, arealso becoming important. PMCs contain about60 percent reinforcing fiber by volume. Thestrength and stiffness of some continuous fiber-reinforced PMCs are compared with those ofsheet molding compound and various metals infigure 3-3. For instance, unidirectional, high-strength graphite/epoxy has over three times thespecific strength and stiffness (specific propertiesare ordinary properties divided by density) ofcommon metal alloys.

Of the continuous fibers, glass has a relativelylow stiffness; however, its tensile strength is com-petitive with the other fibers and its cost is dra-matically lower. This combination of propertiesis likely to ensure that glass fibers remain the mostwidely used reinforcement for high-volume com-mercial PMC applications. Only when stiffnessor weight are at a premium would aramid andgraphite fibers be used.

Interphase

The interphase of PMCs is the region in whichloads are transmitted between the reinforcementand the matrix. The extent of interaction betweenthe reinforcement and the matrix is a design vari-able, and it may vary from strong chemical bond-ing to weak frictional forces. This can often becontrolled by using an appropriate coating on thereinforcing fibers.

Figure 3-3.—Comparison of the Specific Strength and Stiffness of Various Composites and Metalsa

.

.

/

(0°) Graphite/epoxy

(0°) Kevlar/epoxy

+ (0° ,900)Graphi te /epoxy/

+

(0°) S-glass/epoxy

Graphite/epoxy

+ Sheet molding compound (SMC)

.

1 2 3 4

Specific tensile strength (relative units)Specific properties are ordinary properties divided by density; angles refer to the directions of fiber reinforcementa Steel: AlSl 4340; Alumlnum: 7075-T6; Titanium: Ti-6Al-4V.



Generally, a strong interracial bond makes the coupling is often intermediate between the strongPMC more rigid, but brittle. A weak bond de- and weak limits. The character of the interracialcreases stiffness, but enhances toughness. If the bond is also critical to the long-term stability ofinterracial bond is not at least as strong as the ma- the PMC, playing a key role in fatigue properties,trix, debonding can occur at the interphase under environmental behavior, and resistance to hot/certain loading conditions. To maximize the frac- wet conditions.ture toughness of the PMC, the most desirable

PROPERTIES OF POLYMER MATRIX COMPOSITES

The properties of the PMC depend on the ma-trix, the reinforcement, and the interphase. Con-sequently, there are many variables to considerwhen designing a PMC. These include not onlythe types of matrix and reinforcement but alsotheir relative proportions, the geometry of thereinforcement, and the nature of the interphase.Each of these variables must be carefully con-trolled to produce a structural material optimizedfor the conditions for which it is to be used.

The use of continuous-fiber reinforcement con-fers a directional character, called an isotropy, tothe properties of PMCs. PMCs are strongest whenstressed parallel to the direction of the fibers (0°,axial, or longitudinal, direction) and weakest whenstressed perpendicular to the fibers (90°, trans-verse direction). In practice, most structures aresubjected to complex loads, necessitating the useof fibers oriented in several directions (e.g., 0,±45, 90°). However, PMCs are most efficientlyused in applications that can take advantage ofthe inherent anisotropy of the materials, as shownin figure 3-3.

When discontinuous fibers or particles are usedfor reinforcement, the properties tend to be moreisotropic because these reinforcements tend tobe randomly oriented, Such PMCs lack the out-standing strength of continuous-fiber PMCs, butthey can be produced more cheaply, using thetechnologies developed for unreinforced plastics,such as extrusion, injection molding, and com-pression molding. Sheet molding compound (SMC)is such a material, widely used in the automo-tive industry; see figure 3-3.

The complexity of advanced composites cancomplicate a comparison of properties with con-ventional materials. Properties such as specific

strength are relatively easy to compare, Advancedcomposites have higher specific strengths andstiffnesses than metals, as shown in figure 3-3. Inmany cases, however, properties that are easilydefined in metals are less easily defined in ad-vanced composites. Toughness is such a prop-erty. In metals, wherein the dynamics of crackpropagation and failure are relatively well under-stood, toughness can be defined relatively eas-ily. I n an advanced composite, however, tough-ness is a complicated function of the matrix, fiber,and interphase, as well as the reinforcement ge-ometry.5 Shear and compression properties of ad-vanced composites are also poorly defined.

Another result of the complexity of PMCs is thatthe mechanical properties are highly interdepen-dent. For instance, cracking associated with shearstresses may result in a loss of stiffness. Impactdamage can seriously reduce the compressivestrength of PMCs. Compressive and shear prop-erties can be seen to relate strongly to the tough-ness of the matrix, and to the strength of the in-terfacial bond between matrix and fiber.

‘Given that perfect composite toughness cannot be attained, insome cases a material with lower toughness may be preferable toone with higher toughness. A brittle composite with low impactresistance may shatter upon impact, while a slightly tougher com-posite may suffer cracking. For some applications, even slight crack-ing may be unacceptable, and impossible to repair. If the compos-ite shatters in the region of impact, but no cracking occurs in thesurrounding material, the damage may be easier to repair.

Ch. 3—Polymer Matrix Composites . 79


Design

Advanced composites are designed materials.This is really the fact that underlies their useful-ness. Given the spectrum of matrix and reinforce-ment materials available, properties can be op-timized for a specific application. An advancedcomposite can be designed to have zero coeffi-cient of thermal expansion. It can be reinforcedwith combinations of fiber materials (hybrid PMCs)and geometries to maximize performance andminimize cost. The design opportunities of PMCmaterials are only beginning to be realized.

The enormous design flexibility of advancedcomposites is obtained at the cost of a large num-ber of unfamiliar design variables. In fact, com-posites are more accurately characterized as cus-tomized structures, rather than materials. Althoughthe engineering properties of the homogeneousresins and fibers can be determined, the prop-erties of each composite depend on the compo-sition, fiber geometry, and the nature of the in-terphase. However, the categories of mechanicaland physical properties used to characterize PMCsare carried over from long engineering experi-ence with metals.

A major need in advanced composites technol-ogy is a better capability for modeling structure-property relationships (discussed in more depthin ch. 5). In spite of this lack, however, experi-ence to date has shown that designers and man-ufacturers can produce reliable PMC structures.This is probably due to two factors. First, in theface of uncertainty, designers tend to overdesign;that is, they are conservative in their use of ma-terial, to avoid any possibility of material failure.Second, PMC structures are extensively testedbefore use, ensuring that any potential problemsshow up during the tests. Thus, the PMC materi-als themselves have been proven, in the sensethat structures can be fabricated that are relia-ble and meet all design criteria. However, bothoverdesign and empirical testing are costly anddrive up the prices of PMCs. Thus, a principalbenefit of enhanced modeling capability will beto help make advanced composites more cost-competitive.

Manufacturing

Given the many different fibers and matricesfrom which PMCs can be made, the subject ofPMC manufacturing is an extremely broad one.However, more than any other single area, Iow-cost manufacturing technologies are requiredbefore advanced composites can be used morewidely. The basic steps include: 1 ) impregnationof the fiber with the resin, 2) forming of the struc-ture, 3) curing (thermoset matrices) or thermalprocessing (thermoplastic matrices), and 4) fin-ishing.

Depending on the process, these steps mayoccur separately or continuously. For instance,the starting material for many PMCs is a prepreg;i.e., a fiber tape or cloth that has been preimpreg-nated with resin and partially cured. In pultru-sion, by contrast, impregnation, forming, and cur-ing are done in one continuous process. Someof the more important fabrication processes forPMCs are listed in table 3-1.

In the aerospace sector, advanced compositestructures are commonly fabricated by the slowand labor-intensive process of hand lay-up of

Table 3-1 .—Production Techniques forPolymer Composites

Technique Characteristics Examples

Sheet molding Fast, flexible, 1-2” SMC automotive bodyfiber panels

Injection molding Fast, high volume Gears, fan bladesvery short fibers,thermoplastics

Resin transfer Fast, complex parts, Automotive structuralmolding good control of fiber panels

orientationPrepreg tape lay-up Slow, laborious, Aerospace structures

reliable, expensive(speed improved byautomation)

Pultrusion Continuous, constant l-beams, columnscross-section parts

Filament winding Moderate speed, Aircraft fuselage,complex geometries, pipes, drive shaftshollow parts

Thermal forming Reinforced thermoplastic All of above(future) matrices; fast, easy

repair, joining



Photo credit: Hercules, Inc.

Filament winding of a rocket motor case.

prepreg tapes. Hand lay-up involves placementof sheets or tapes of prepreg on a tool (the con-toured surface that defines the shape of the fin-ished part). Labor costs often dominate the pro-duction costs of these PMC structures. In the caseof a business aircraft fuselage, material costs havebeen estimated at about$13,000 per unit; laborcosts, about $21,000 per unit; and capital costs,about $1,400 per unit.6 These labor cost estimatesinclude 1,154 person-hours for hand lay-up of thestiffeners and honeycomb core of the fuselage;only 35 person-hours are required to produce theinner and outer advanced composite skins, whichcan be fabricated by the automated filamentwinding process. ’

New, more automated processes are now avail-able that offer dramatic increases in productivity

GMaterials Modeling Associates, “Properties, Costs, and Appli-cations of Polymeric Composites, “ in conjunction with Massachu-setts Institute of Technology, a contractor report prepared for OTA,December 1985.

71 bid.

over hand lay-up. One project underway in-house at an airframe manufacturer can lay up to100 feet of 3- or 6-inch wide prepreg tape perminute, in complex shapes of variable thickness.8

At least one machine tool manufacturer is devel-oping a system of automated tape laying thattakes into account the specified contour of themold, and aligns the tape according to tape widthand desired gap between strips, laying the tapealong a precomputed path.

Most of these processes have been exploredfor thermosetting advanced composites for air-craft applications such as ailerons, stabilizers,flaps, fins, and wing skins; in addition there hasalso been some work done in the area of auto-

8“Rockwell Team Demonstrates Automatic Construction of LargeComposite Wings,” Aviation Week & Space Technology, June 15,1987, p. 336.

Photo credit: Hercules Inc.

Graphite fiber reinforcement forms. Top: broadgoods;right: prepreg tape; left (front): chopped fiber and

carbon fiber rope; left (rear): fabric and fabric prepreg.


mated tape laying for continuous fiber-reinforcedthermoplastic sheets, laid in parallel strips andcontinuously fused as they are placed.9


In general, PMCs do not have as great a ten-dency to brittle fracture as do ceramics. Thismeans that the critical flaw size in large PMCstructures may be of the order of centimeters,whereas in ceramics, it is some tens of microns.Advanced composite structures are increasinglyused in life-critical structures such as aircraftwings and fuselages. This places a special bur-den on nondestructive evaluation (NDE), both inthe factory and in the field.

Although NDE is now used primarily for the de-tection of defects in finished structures, in the fu-ture it could be used increasingly for monitoringthe status of PMCs at intermediate steps in theproduction process. Progress in this field will re-quire development of sophisticated sensors andfeedback control systems.

Requirements for NDE of PMCs differ some-what from those for ceramics. Although the flaw

9Roger Seifrled, Cincinnati Miliacron, personal communication,June 1, 1987.

sizes to be detected are not as small, the area ofstructure to be investigated is frequently muchlarger, up to hundreds of square feet. Thus, NDEtechniques are required that can rapidly scanlarge areas for flaws or damage. Even thoughthere are numerous techniques that may be use-ful in the laboratory for testing small specimensfor research purposes, relatively few are appro-priate to production or field-level inspection.

Several of the more important NDE techniquesthat are relevant to production, end product, andfield level inspection are listed in table 3-2. Ex-cellent progress has been made in productionlevel techniques such as ultrasonics, and manu-facturers are confident that large PMC surfaceareas can be inspected reliably and economicallyfor such flaws as bulk delamination.

The inspection and repair of PMC structures(e.g., aircraft components) at the depot and fieldlevels will require a substantial training programfor inspectors unfamiliar with PMCs. All proce-dures must be standardized and straightforwardbecause, in general, PMC experts will not beavailable. In the future, as inspection processesbecome fully computerized, this could bean ex-cellent application for automated systems thatcan guide the operator through the process andalert him to any detected anomalies.

Table 3-2.—NDE Techniques Appropriate for Production, Finished Product,Depot-, and Field-Level Inspections of Polymer Matrix Composite Structures

Complex Development forNDE technique Flaw type Sensitivity shapes commercialization

Production:Visual (remote) . . . . . . . . . . .Fiber orientation, good good none

foreign materialUltrasonic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Porosity, viscosity good poor extensive

during cureDielectrometry . . . . . . . . . . . . Degree of cure good good some

End product:Visual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Surface good good noneUltrasonic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bulk good poor someRadiographic . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bulk fair excellent noneAcoustic emission . . . . . . . .Bulk fair good extensive

Depot level:Ultrasonic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bulk delamination good poor some

Field level:Ultrasonic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bulk delamination fair poor extensive

SOURCE: Joseph A. Moyzis, et al., “Nondestructive Testing of Polymer Matrix Composites,”a contractor report prepared forOTA, December 1985.


HEALTH AND SAFETY

There are a number of unique health and safetyissues associated with the manufacture of PMCmaterials. The health hazards associated with themanufacture of PMC materials stem from the factthat chemically active materials are used andworkers handling them may breathe harmfulfumes or come into contact with irritating chem-icals. The chemical of greatest concern is the sty-rene monomer used in polyester resins. The prob-lem is most severe when the resin is sprayed, andthe monomer evaporates into the air. Inhalationof styrene monomer can cause headaches, diz-ziness, or sore throat. In fact, some people be-come sensitized to the vapors and they can nolonger work in a reinforced plastics plant.

The Occupational Health and Safety Adminis-tration (OSHA) has specified that styrene mono-mer concentrations in a plant should not exceed100 parts per million.10 In a plant in which spraysystems are used, extensive air-handling equip-ment, spray booths, and air masks are requiredto maintain these standards. Where polyesterresins are used for compression molding, resintransfer molding, or other enclosed mold systems,the problem can be dealt with by use of simpleexhaust systems.

A new safety hazard was introduced with theadvent of carbon fibers. They tend to float aroundthe plant in which they are used. Because theyare electrical conductors, they can get into un-protected electrical devices and cause short cir-cuits. The fiber concentration in the air can becontrolled by a negative pressure exhaust system

IOWor/~ Ofcompos;tes, quarterly publication of the SPI Reinforced

Plastics/Composites Institute, winter 1986.

in the area in which they are used, but all elec-trical devices in the area should be sealed tomake them explosion proof. Because most fac-tories using carbon fibers are generally involvedwith advanced composites and are more sophis-ticated than most reinforced plastics plants, theyare able to handle this hazard without undue dif-ficulty.

Recycling and Disposal

Most PMC materials in use today have ther-mosetting matrices; consequently, after they havebeen cured, they have no apparent scrap value.Although attempts have been made to grind themup and use them as fillers, this has not provento be economically practical. The reuse of un-cured PMCs offers little economic incentive; mostscrap is simply discarded, By contrast, one of thepotential advantages of PMCs with thermoplas-tic matrices is that the scrap can be recycled,

Cured PMCs present no particular disposalproblem; they are chemically inert and can beused for landfill. Incineration is generally avoidedbecause it can generate toxic smoke.

The principal problem associated with PMC dis-posal arises with uncured PMCs. Wet lay-ups,prepregs, SMC, etc. are still chemically active andpose both health and safety problems. If used inlandfill, the active chemicals can leach out andcause contamination of the soil or water. A moreserious problem is that the catalyzed resins maygo on to cure and generate an exotherm thatcauses spontaneous combustion or self-ignition.The safe way to dispose of uncured PMC mate-rial is to bake it until it is cured and then disposeof it.

APPLICATIONS AND MARKETS

PMCs area more mature technology than struc-tural ceramics. With the experience gained in mil-itary applications such as fighter aircraft androcket motor casings beginning in the 1970s, ad-vanced composites now have a good record ofperformance and reliability. They are rapidly be-

coming the baseline structural material of the de-fense/aerospace industry.

Because of their high cost, diffusion of advancedcomposites into the civilian economy is likely tobe a top-down process, progressing from rela-


tively high value-added applications such as air-craft to automobiles and then to the relativelylow-technology applications such as construction,which generally requires standardized shapessuch as tubes, bars, beams, etc. On the otherhand, there is also a bottom-up process at workin which savings in manufacturing costs permitunreinforced engineering plastics and short fiber-reinforced PMCs to replace metals in applicationsin which high strength and stiffness are not re-quired, such as use of SMC for automobile bodypanels.

Applications and markets for PMCs are dis-cussed according to end-user industry below.

Aerospace

The aerospace industry is estimated to con-sume about 50 percent of advanced compositesproduction in the United States.11 Growth pro-jections for aerospace usage of advanced com-posites have ranged from 8.5 percent per year12

to 22 percent per year.13 Advanced Composites

are used extensively today in small military air-craft, military and commercial rotorcraft, and pro-totype business aircraft. The next major aircraftmarket opportunity for advanced composites isin large military and commercial transport aircraft.

The primary matrix materials used in aerospaceapplications are epoxies, and the most commonreinforcements are carbon/graphite, aramid (e.g.,Du Pont’s Kevlar), and high-stiffness glass fibers.However, high-temperature thermoplastics suchas PEEK are considered by many to be the ma-trices of choice for future aerospace applications.

Compared with metals, the principal advan-tages of advanced composites in aerospace ap-plications are their superior specific strength andstiffness, resulting in weight savings of 10 to 60percent over metal designs, with 20 to 30 per-

I lstrategic Analysis, Inc., op. cit., March 1987.~lACCOr~irrg to ‘‘worldwide High Performance COrnpOSiteS, ” a

market study conducted by Frost & Sullivan, New York, NY, as re-ported in World of Corrr~sites, a publication of the Society of Plas-tics Industries, winter 1986, p. 4.

1 IACCOrding to a market study by Charles H. Kline & CO., “Ad-

vanced Polymer Composites, ” Fairfield, NJ, reported in Plastics Engi-neering, June 1985, p. 62.

cent being typical .14 This weight reduction canbe used to increase range, payload, maneuvera-bility and speed, or to reduce fuel consumption.It has been estimated that a pound of weightsaved on a commercial transport aircraft is worth$100 to $300 over its service life, depending onthe price of fuel, among other factors.15 This highpremium for weight saved is unique to this aero-space sector, and explains why it leads all othersin advanced composite market growth rate. Ad-ditional advantages of advanced composites aretheir superior fatigue and corrosion resistance,and vibration-damping properties.

Military Aircraft

Advanced composites have become essentialto the superior performance of a large numberof fighter and attack aircraft (figure 3-4). Becausethe performance advantages of advanced com-posites in military aircraft more than compensatefor their high cost, this is likely to be the fastestgrowing market for advanced composites overthe next decade. Indications are that compositesmay account for up to 40 percent of the struc-

lqCarl Zweben, “Polymer Matrix Composites, ” Frontiers in Ma-teriak Technologies, M.A. Meyers and O.T. Inal (eds.) (The Nether-lands: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1985), ch. 12, p. 365.

15BOb Hammer, Boeing Commercial Aircraft Co., personal Com-

munication, August 1986.

Figure 3-4.—Composite Aircraft Structure (by percent)V-22 Rotor Craf t

implem

40

S-76

k20

e n t a t i o n

Adv

A

Fighter &

~ F i g h t e r A t t a c k A / C

1970 1980 1990

Year of first flight

KEY O Business aircraft and rotorcraftv Military rotorcraftA Fighter and attack aircraft❑ Large commercial and military aircraftO Bomber

SOURCE: Richard N. Hadcock, Grumman Aircraft Systems Division, “Status andViability of Composite Materials in Structure of High Performance Air-craft,” a presentation to the National Research Council, Aeronauticsand Space Engineering Board, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey,CA, Feb. 10, 1966.


Photo credit: Hercules, Inc.

A modern lightweight fighter incorporating 64 differentcomponents—more than 900 pounds of composite

structure per airplane.

tural weight of the Advanced Tactical Fighter(ATF), which is still in the design phase. One esti-mate, which assumes only existing productionplus the ATF, projects a growth from about 0.3million pounds per year in 1985 to 2 millionpounds per year in 1995.16

Commercial Aircraft

If aramid and glass fiber-reinforced compositesare included, the volume of composites used incommercial and business aircraft is about twicethat used in military aircraft.17 In current com-mercial transport aircraft, such as the Boeing 767,advanced composites make up about 3 percentof the structural weight, and are used exclusivelyin the secondary (not flight-critical) structure.18

However, two companies, Beechcraft and Avtek,are anticipating Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) certification of “all-composite aircraft pro-totypes for business use in 1988 and 1990, respec-tively. 19

lbRichard N. Hadcock, Grumman Aircraft Systems Division,

“Status and Viability of Composite Materials in Structures of HighPerformance Aircraft, ” a presentation to the National ResearchCouncil, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, Naval Postgrad-uate School, Monterey, CA, Feb. 10, 1986.

I Zlbid.18Darrel R. Tenney, NASA Langley Research Center, “Advanced

Composite Materials: Applications and Technology Needs,” pres-entation to the Metal Properties Council, Inc., Miami, FL, Dec. 5,1985.

lgAccordi ng t. information supplied by Beechcraft and Avtek.

Although overall growth of the business aircraftfleet through the early 1990s is expected to beonly around 10 percent, two categories (turbo-prop and turbojets) are expected to grow sig-nificantly.20 These aircraft are also the best can-didates for composite fuselages. The estimatedvalue (derived from cost and volume estimates)of composite fuselages, assuming all business air-craft manufacturers adopt this technology, isabout $100 million per year.21 These fuselagescould account for 1.2 million pounds of graph-ite/epoxy consumption annually. Large transportor commercial aircraft fuselages will probably notbe made from advanced composites until thetechnology is demonstrated in business aircraft.

By the year 2000, PMCs could make up 65 per-cent of the structural weight of commercial trans-port aircraft.22 Estimating a structural weight of75,000 pounds per aircraft and production of 500aircraft per year, this application alone should ac-count for 24 million pounds of advanced com-posites per year. Assuming a starting materialvalue of $60 per pound, the market in the year2000 is projected to be worth about $1.5 billionfor the composite materials alone. A much moreconservative estimate, which assumes that nonew commercial aircraft will be built by 1995,has placed the U.S. composite commercial air-frame production at only 1 million to 2 millionpounds in that year.23

Helicopters

With the exception of the all-composite busi-ness aircraft prototypes, which are still awaitingcertification, advanced composites have beenused more extensively in helicopters than in air-craft. Military applications have led the way, andthe advantages of advanced composites are muchthe same as in aircraft: weight reduction, partsconsolidation, and resistance to fatigue and cor-rosion,

Over the past 15 years, advanced compositeshave become the baseline materials for rotors,blades, and tail assemblies. Sikorsky’s S-76 com-

zOMaterials Modeling Associates, op. cit., footnote 6, 1985.z’ Ibid.zzTenney, op. cit., footnote 18 .zJHadcock, CIp. Cit., footnote 16.

Ch. 3—Polymer Matrix Composites c 85. .

mercial model, which is about 25 percent ad-vanced composite by weight (figure 3-4), was cer-tified in the late 1970s. Future military helicopters,such as the Army’s proposed LHX (with majorairframe design teams at Bell/McDonnell Douglasand Boeing/Sikorsky), or the Navy’s tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey (designed by Bell/Boeing) have speci-fications that require designers to consider ad-vanced composites. In these helicopters, com-posites are likely to comprise up to 80 percentof the structural weight (figure 3-4).

Materials such as graphite/epoxy are likely tobe used in the airframe, bulkheads, tail booms,and vertical fins, while glass/epoxy PMCs of lesserstiffness could be used in the rotor systems. Aswith aircraft, there could be a long-term trendaway from epoxy resins and toward thermoplasticresins.

Automotive Industry

The automotive industry is widely viewed asbeing the industry in which the greatest volumeof advanced composite materials could be usedin the future. (See ch. 7 for a case study examin-ing the use of PMCs for automobile body struc-tures.) Because the industry is mature and highlycompetitive, the principal motivation for intro-ducing PMCs is cost savings.

In contrast to the aircraft industry, there is noclear-cut premium associated with a pound ofweight saved. Nevertheless, the automotive in-dustry continues to be interested in saving weightas it pursues the conflicting goals of larger au-tomobiles and higher fuel efficiency. Automakersare looking to the vehicle skin/frame systems toprovide the next big leap in weight reduction.Other potential technical advantages of PMCs,such as corrosion resistance, appear to be sec-ondary to the cost issue.

By far the greatest volume of PMC material inuse is sheet molding compound (WK), used innonstructural parts such as exterior panels. Themost visible automotive use of SMC in recentyears has been in the Pontiac Fiero, which hasan all-PMC exterior.24

24 The FierO wi II be cancel led at the end of 1988.

Photo credit: Ford Motor Co.

Compression molded composite rear floor panprototype for the Ford Escort. Ten steel components

were consolidated into a single molding, with15 percent weight savings.

The next major opportunity for PMCs in au-tomobiles is in structural components.25 Twostructural components currently in service are theadvanced composite drive shaft and leaf spring.Some 3,000 drive shafts, manufactured by fila-ment winding of graphite and E-glass fibers in apolyester resin, were used annually in the FordEconoline van.26 Meanwhile, glass FRP springs inthe Corvette and several other models are in pro-duction at the rate of approximately 600,000 peryear. Leaf springs are regarded as a very promis-ing application of PMCs, and they are expectedto show strong growth, especially in light trucks.prototype primary body structures have been con-structed with weight savings of 20 percent ormore.

Engineering groups within the Big Three U.S.automobile producers are considering advanced

25P. Beardmore, “Composite Structures for Automobiles,” Comp-osite Structures, vol. 5, 1986, pp. 163-176.

26Although composite drive shafts are technically successful, Ford

took them out of production in 1987 in favor of a new aluminumdesign.


composite unibody vehicle designs for the late1990s. 27 The automakers are exploring PMCframes for a variety of reasons. PMC vehicleswould enable designers to reduce the numberof parts required in assembly; some manufac-turers are looking into a one-piece advancedcomposite body. By reducing the number ofparts, better consistency of parts can be achievedat considerably reduced assembly costs.

Advanced composites also offer substantial im-provements in specific mechanical properties,with the possibility of reducing weight while in-creasing strength and stiffness. Finally, becausethey do not rust, PMCs offer greatly improvedcorrosion resistance over steel or galvanized steel.Analysts have estimated that PMC automobilescould last 20 or more years, compared to the cur-rent average vehicle lifetime of 10 years .28

The major technical barrier to use of PMCs inthe automotive industry is the lack of manufac-turing technologies capable matching the highproduction rates of metal-stamping technology(see ch. 7). The fastest current technologies canprocess material at the rate of tens of pounds perminute, but true economy will require rates ofa hundred pounds per minute or more.29 Thus,there is a gap of roughly an order of magnitudebetween current and economical rates.

Reciprocating Equipment

PMC materials have considerable potential foruse in many different kinds of high-speed indus-trial machinery. Current applications include suchcomponents as centrifuge rotors, weaving ma-chinery, hand-held tools, and robot arms. All ofthese applications take advantage of the low in-ertial mass, but they also benefit to varyingdegrees from the tailorable an isotropic stiffness,superior strength, low thermal expansion, andfatigue-life and vibration-damping characteristicsof PMCs.

zTMaterials Modeling Associates, op. cit., footnote 6, 1985.

z81 bid.Zgcharles Sega[, Omnia, in OTA workshop on ‘‘Future Applica-

tions of Advanced Composites, ” Dec. 10, 1985.

In robotic applications, increasing both thespeed and the endpoint accuracy of the robot aredesired improvements. Stiffness is the key me-chanical property in that the endpoint accuracyis limited by bending deflections in the beam-shaped robot members. With metal designs, stiff-ness is obtained at the cost of higher mass, whichlimits the robot’s response time. Consequently,the ratio of the weight of the manipulator armto that of the payload is rarely lower than 10:1.30Because of their superior stiffness per unit weight,PMCs are a promising solution to this problem.At present, only one U.S. company has marketeda robot incorporating PMCs,31 although there areseveral Japanese models on the market and anumber of other countries are funding research.

Although the benefits of using PMCs in recip-rocating equipment are clear, initial attempts topenetrate this market have been disappointing.The market is a highly fragmented one, andequipment manufacturers, who tend to be ori-ented toward metals, have shown a reluctanceto consider the use of a higher cost material (par-ticularly when its use requires new processes andtooling) even when performance advantages aredemonstrated. No attempt has been made toquantitatively estimate future markets. PMCpenetration is likely to be slow but steady.

Naval Applications

The light weight and corrosion resistance ofPMCs makes them attractive for a number ofnaval applications. Advanced composites are cur-rently in production in molded propeller assembliesfor the Mark 46 torpedo, at a cost savings of 65to 70 percent over the previous aluminum de-sign .32 The Navy is also evaluating PMCs for hatchdoors, bulkheads, and propeller shafts. PMCcomponents in the ship superstructure have thedual advantage of lowering the center of mass(and therefore increasing the stability) and pro-

30B, s, Thompson and c.K. Sung, “The Design of Robots and in-

telligent Manipulators Using Modern Composite Materials, ” Mech-anism and Machine Theory 20:471 -82, 1985.

31 G raco Robotics of Lavonia, Ml , manufactures a spray pa in t ing

robot with a hollow graphite/epoxy arm. However, this is beingphased out in favor of a new aluminum design.

JZRonald L. pegg and Herbert Reyes, ‘‘Progress i n Naval Com-posites,” Advanced Materials and Processes, March 1987, p. 35.

—

Ch. 3—Polymer Matrix Composites w 87

Photo credit: The CUMAGNA Corp.

Computer trace of fiber paths in a three-dimensional braided l-beam. This process yields a composite l-beam which isstrong in all directions, but which weighs much less than steel.

vialing better protection against shrapnel frag-ments in combat. PMCs have also been in usefor years as sonar domes on submarines, and ra-domes for surface ships.

Future applications for PMCs on surface shipsinclude antenna masts and stacks (due to reducedweight and radar cross section), and valves, pipes,and ducts (due to lower weight and corrosion re-sistance). PMCs could also be used for an ad-vanced technology submarine hull, providingweight savings and thus speed advantages overmetal hulls currently in use.

Construction

A potentially high-volume market for PMCs liesin construction applications, especially in con-struction of buildings, bridges, and housing.Additional applications include lampposts, smoke-stacks, and highway culverts. Construction equip-ment, including cranes, booms, and outdoordrive systems, could also benefit from use ofPMCs. Because of the many inexpensive alterna-tive building materials currently being used, thecost of PMC materials will be the key to their usein this sector.


The chief advantage of using PMCs in construc-tion would be reduced overall systems costs forerecting the structure, including consolidation offabrication operations, reduced transportationand construction costs due to lighter weight struc-tures, and reduced maintenance and lifetimecosts due to improved corrosion resistance. 33

Bridges are likely to be the first large-scale con-struction application for PMCs in the UnitedStates. Because the largest load that must be sup-ported by the bridge is its own dead weight, useof lightweight advanced composites would allowthe bridge to accommodate increased traffic orheavier trucks. Decking materials are likely to berelatively inexpensive vinylester or epoxy resinsreinforced with continuous glass fibers. Cableswould probably be reinforced with graphite oraramid fibers, because of the high stiffness andlow creep requirements.

The opportunities for use of PMCs in bridgesare considerable: most highway bridges in theUnited States are over 35 years old, and most rail-road bridges are over 70 years old.34 Replacingor refurbishing even a small fraction of these withPMC materials would involve a substantial vol-ume of fiber and resin. However, significant tech-nical, economic, and institutional barriers existto the implementation of this technology, suchthat construction opportunities should be viewedas long term. Nevertheless, the U.S. Departmentof Transportation is currently evaluating PMCs foruse in bridge decking and stay cables.35 Fiberglasstendons are also being used in place of steel inprestressed concrete bridge structures.36 Othercountries that have active programs in this areainclude China, Great Britain, West Germany, ls-rael, and Switzerland.

The manufactured housing industry is an espe-cially intriguing potential opportunity for PMCmaterials. In 1984, almost half of all new hous-ing units were partially manufactured; that is,large components were built in factories, rather

33HOWard smallowi~, “ReShaping the Future of Plastic Buildings, ”Civil Engineering, May 1985, pp. 38-41.

JdJohn Scalzi, National Science Foundation, personal commun i-cation, August 1986.

JSAccording to information provided by Craig A. Ballinger, Fed-eral Highway Administration, August 1986.

JbEngineering News Record t Aug. 29, 1985, p. 11.

than assembled on site.37 In the future, factorymanufacture of housing promises to reduce hous-ing costs while still maintaining options for dis-tinctive designs. PMC manufacturing techniquessuch as pultrusion and transfer molding could beused to fabricate integral wall structures contain-ing structural members and panels constructedin a single step. Components such as i-beams,angles, and channels can also be economicallyproduced by these techniques. In spite of the op-portunities, however, Japan and several countriesin Europe are far ahead of the United States inhousing construction technologies.

One important research need affecting the useof PMCs in construction applications has to do

JThomas E. Nutt-Powell, “The House That Machines Built, ”Technology Review, November 1985, p. 31.


with adhesion and joining. The joining of PMCmaterials to other materials for the purpose ofload transfer, or to themselves for the purposeof manufacturing components, requires advancesin technology beyond present levels. This is a par-ticular obstacle when joining may be done by un-skilled labor. A second need for PMCs use in theconstruction industry involves the availability ofstandardized shapes of standard PMC materialsto be purchased much the way metal shapes arecurrently sold for construction use.

An additional technical barrier is need for de-velopment of design techniques for integrated,multifunctional structures. Window frames madeby joining together several pieces of wood canbe replaced by molded plastic and PMC struc-tures having many fewer pieces, lower assemblycosts, and better service performance. The flexi-bility of the design and manufacture of PMC ma-terials could also be used to integrate a windowframe into a larger wall section, again reducingthe number of parts and the cost of manufacture.This has already been done for certain experi-mental bathroom structures in which lavatories,shower rooms, and other structural componentshave been integrated in a single molding.38

The principal barriers to the adoption of newmaterials technologies in the construction indus-try in the United States are not so much techno-logical as institutional and economic. Like thehighway construction industry, the housing con-struction industry is highly fragmented. Thismakes the rate of research and development in-vestment and adoption of new technology verylow. The performance of housing materials is reg-ulated by thousands of different State and localbuilding and fire safety codes, all written withconventional materials in mind. Further, engi-neers and contractors lack familiarity with thePMC materials and processes. Finally, PMCs mustcompete with a variety of low-cost housing ma-terials in current use. As a result, PMCs used inmanufactured housing are not likely to be ad-vanced; rather, they are likely to consist of wood

3~Ken neth L. Reifsnicfer, Materials Response Croup, Virglnla Poly-

techn ic Ins t i tu te , “Eng ineer ing Research Needs of Polymer Com-

pos i tes , ” a cont rac tor repor t p repared fo r OTA, December 1985.

fibers pressed with inexpensive resins or lami-nated structures involving FRP skin panels gluedto a foam or honeycomb core.

Medical Devices

PMC materials are currently being developedfor medical prostheses and implants. The impactof PMCs on orthopedic devices is expected to beespecially significant. Although medical devicesare not likely to provide a large volume marketfor PMCs, their social and economic value arelikely to be high.

The total estimated world market for orthope-dic devices such as hips, knees, bone plates, andintramedullary nails is currently about 6 millionunits with a total value of just over $500 miIlion.39

Estimates of the U.S. market for all biocompati-ble materials by the year 2000 range up to $3 bil-lion per year.40 PMCs could capture a substan-tial portion of that, sharing the market withceramics and metals.

Metallic implant devices, such as the total hipunit that has been used since the early 1960s, suf-fer a variety of disadvantages: difficulty in fixa-tion, allergic reactions to various metal ions, poormatching of elastic stiffness, and mechanical (fa-tigue) failure.

PMC materials have the potential to overcomemany of these difficulties. Not only can the prob-lem of metal ion release be eliminated, but PMCmaterials can be fabricated with stiffness that istailored to the stiffness of the bone to which theyare attached, so that the bone continues to bearload, and does not resorb (degenerate) due toabsence of mechanical loading. This is a persist-ent problem with metal implants.

it is also possible to create implants from bio-degradable PMC systems that would provide ini-tial stability to a fracture but would gradually re-sorb over time as the natural tissue repairs itself.In addition, PMCs can be designed to serve as

~gl bid.~~Larry L. Hench and ju ne Wi Ison, “Biocompatlbility of Sillcates

for Medical Use, ” Sr’/icon Blochemlstry, CIBA Foundation Sympo-sium No. 121 (Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, 1986), pp.231-246.


a scaffold for the invasive growth of bone tissue To overcome the remaining technical barriers,as an alternative to cement fixation. This leads a cooperative effort of interdisciplinary teams isto a stronger and more durable joint. required. At a minimum, a team must include ex-

Research in PMC orthopedic devices is cur-pertise in design, engineering, manufacturing,and orthopedic surgery. Significant strides in this

rently being carried out on a relatively small scale field are being made in Japan, Great Britain,in the laboratories of orthopedic device manu-facturers. Further research is required to improve

France, West Germany, Italy, Canada, and Aus-tralia, as well as in the United States.41

in situ strength and service life, stress analysis,and fabrication and quality control technologies. 41 Reif~nider, op. Cit., fC3C3tnC3te 38.

FUTURE TRENDS IN POLYMER MATRIX COMPOSITESNovel Reinforcement Types

Rigid Rod Molecules

PMCs can be reinforced with individual, rigidrod-like molecules or with fibers generated fromthese molecules. One example is poly (phenyl-benzobisthiazole), or PBT. Experimental fibersmade from this material have specific strengthand stiffness on a par with the most advanced fi-ber reinforcement, exceeding the properties ofcommercially available metals, including titanium,by more than a factor of 10.42 One particularlypromising possibility is to dissolve the molecu-lar rods in a flexible polymer and thus create aPMC reinforced by individual molecules. Sucha homogeneous composition would mitigate theproblem of matching the thermal expansion co-efficient between the reinforcement and the ma-trix, and it would virtually eliminate the trouble-some interface between them. The future of thistechnology will depend on solving the problemsof effectively dissolving the rods in the matrix andof orienting them once dissolved.

Novel Matrices

Because the matrix largely determines the envi-ronmental durability and toughness, the greatestimprovements in the performance of future PMCswill come from new matrices, rather than newfibers. Perhaps the most significant opportunitieslie in the area of molecular design; chemists willbe able to design polymer molecules to have thedesired flexibility, strength, high-temperature re-

qZThaddeus Helminiak, “Hi-Tech Polymers From OrderedMolecules, ” Chemical Week, Apr. 11, 1984.

sistance, and adhesive properties.43 Some of themore promising directions are discussed below.

Oriented Molecular Structures

At present the anisotropic properties of mostPMCs are determined by the directions of fiberorientation. In the future, it may be possible toorient the individual polymer molecules duringor after polymerization to produce a self-reinforced structure. The oriented polymerscould serve the same reinforcing function asfibers do in today’s PMCs. In effect, today’s or-ganic fibers (e.g., Du Pent’s Kevlar or Allied’sSpectra 900), which consist of oriented polymersand which have among the highest specific stiff-ness and strength of all fibers, provide a glimpseof the properties of tomorrow’s matrices.

Recently developed examples of oriented poly-mer structures are the liquid crystal polymers(LCPs). They consist of rigid aromatic chains mod-ified by thermoplastic polyesters (e.g., polyeth-yleneterephthalate, or PET), or polyaramids. Theyhave a self-reinforcing fibrous character that im-parts strength and stiffness comparable to thoseof reinforced thermoplastic molding compounds,such as 30 percent glass-reinforced nylons.44 Thefiber orientations of current LCPs are hard tocontrol (current applications include microwavecookware and ovenware that require high-tem-perature resistance but not high strength) and thisrepresents a challenge for the future.

ojcharles P. West, Resin Research Laboratories, Inc., Personalcommunication, August 1986.

qqReginald B. Stoops, “Ultimate Properties of Polymer MatrixMaterials, ” contractor report prepared for OTA, December 1985.

Ch. 3—Polymer Matrix Composites 91

High-Temperature Matrices

The maximum continuous service temperatureof organic polymers in an oxidizing atmosphereis probably around 700° F,45 although brief ex-posures to higher temperatures can be tolerated.Currently, the most refractory matrices are poly-amides, which can be used at a maximum tem-perature of 600° F (316° C), although slow deg-radation occurs. 46 If stable, high-temperaturematrices could be developed, they would findapplication in a variety of engine componentsand advanced aircraft structures.

Thermotropic Thermoses

These hybrid matrices are designed to exploitthe processing advantages of thermoplastics andthe dimensional stability and corrosion resistanceof thermoses. The molecules are long, discretechains that have the latent capacity to form cross-Iinks. Processing is identical to thermoplastics inthat the discrete polymers are formed at high tem-peratures to the desired shape. Then, however,instead of cooling to produce a solid, the struc-ture is given an extra kick, with additional heator ultraviolet light, which initiates crosslinking be-tween the polymer chains. Thus, the finishedstructure has the dimensional stability character-istic of a thermoset.47

Space Applications

Space Transportation Systems

Over 10,000 pounds of advanced compositesare used on the space shuttle. da Advanced com-posites are also being considered in designs fora proposed National Aerospace Plane (NASP), al-though such an aircraft probably will not be avail-able until after the year 2000. The primary limi-tation on the use of advanced composites in thisapplication would be high temperature.49 Flying

dspaul McMahan, Celanese Research Corp., in an OTA workshop,

“Future Opportunities for the Use of Composite Materials,” Dec.10, 1985.

~Aerospace America, May 1986, p. 22.qzjohn Riggs, Celanese Research Corp., in an OTA workshop,

“Future Opportunities for the Use of Composite Materials, ” Dec.10, 1985.

48Tenney, Op. Ck., footnote 18’dgHadcock, op. cit., footnote 16.

Photo credit: National Aeronaut/es and Space Administration

Reference configuration for the NASA manned spacestation. Composites could be used in the tubular struts

which make up the frame.

at speeds exceeding Mach 7, the lower surfacesand leading edges would experience tempera-tures of 2,000 to 3,000° F (1 ,093 to 1,649° C). so

If advanced composites were available that couldretain high strength and stiffness up to 800° F(427° C), they could be used extensively for thecooler skin structure and most of the substructure.

Space Station

Graphite/epoxy advanced composites and alu-minum are both being considered for the tubu-lar struts in the space station reference design.The goal of reducing launch weight favors the useof advanced composites; however, their lowerthermal conductivity (compared with aluminum)could create problems in service. The most seri-ous environmental problem faced by advancedcomposites is temperature swings between — 250°

50Ibid.

7 5 - 7 9 2 0 - 8 8 - 3

92 w Advanced Materials by Design

F (– 1210 C) and +200° F (+93° C) caused byperiodic exposure to the Sun. This thermal cy-cling produces radial cracks in graphite/epoxytubes that can reduce the torsional stiffness byas much as 30 percent after only 500 cycles.51

To reduce the effects of thermal cycling, ad-vanced composite tubes would be coated witha reflecting, thermally conducting layer to equal-ize the temperature throughout the tube. Thelayer would also protect the PMC from atomicoxygen (a major cause of material degradationin low-Earth orbit), and solar ultraviolet radiation.

Military

Composites of all types, including ceramic,polymer, and metal matrix composites, are idealmaterials for use in space-based military systems,such as those envisioned for the Strategic DefenseInitiative. 52 Properties such as low density, highspecific stiffness, low coefficient of thermal ex-pansion, and high temperature resistance are allnecessary for structures that must maneuver rap-idly in space, maintain high dimensional stabil-ity, and withstand hostile attack. A program de-voted to the development of new materials andstructures has been established within the Stra-tegic Defense Initiative Office.53

Bioproduction

Living cells can synthesize polymeric moleculeswith long chains and complex chemistries thatcannot be economically reproduced in the lab-oratory. For instance, crops and forests are an im-portant source of structural materials and chem-ical feedstocks. Several plants such as cram be andrapeseed, and certain hardwood trees, are now

51 Tenney, op. cit., footnote 18.JZJerome Persh, “Materials and Structures, Science and Technol-

ogy Requirements for the DOD Strategic Defense Initiative, ” Arrrer-ican Ceramic Society Bulletin 64(4):555-559, 1985.

SJThe effo~ includes: lightweight structures; thermal and electri-cal materials; optical materials and processes; tribological materi-als; and materials durability. In 1988, budgets for these materialsprograms were about $26 million, and are projected to reach $54million in 1989.

being evaluated for commercial production of lu-bricants, engineering nylons, and PMCS.54 Forsome materials, such as natural rubber, theUnited States is totally dependent on foreignsources. In the Critical Agricultural Materials Actof 1984 (Public Law 98-284), Congress mandatedthat the Department of Agriculture establish anOffice of Critical Materials to evaluate the poten-tial of industrial crops to replace key importedmaterials. Several demonstration projects of 2,000acres or more were started in 1987.

With the possible exception of wood, it is un-likely that biologically produced materials willcompete seriously with PMCs in the structural ap-plications discussed in this report. Although nat-ural polymers such as cellulose, collagen, and silkcan have remarkably high strength, their low stiff-ness is likely to limit their use in many structures.Nevertheless, their unique chemical and physi-cal properties make them appropriate for certainspecialty applications. For instance, collagen isa biologically compatible material that is used togenerate artificial skin.55

Biotechnology may offer a novel approach tothe synthesis of biological polymers in the future.Genetically engineered bacteria and cells havebeen used to produce proteins related to silk. 56

In the future, production rates could be acceler-ated by extracting the protein synthetic machin-ery from the cells and driving the process withan external energy source, such as a laser or elec-tric current.57 The flexibility inherent in such ascheme would be enormous; by simply alteringthe genetic instructions, new polymers could beproduced.

54According to information supplied by the USDA’S Office of Crit-ical Materials.

55 J. Burke, et al., “The Successful Use of Physiologically Accept-able Artificial Skin in the Treatment of Extensive Burn In jury,” An-na/s of Surgery, vol. 194, 1982, pp. 413-28.

5bDennls Lan~, Syntro C o r p . , p e r s o n a l cornrnunlcdtlon, August

1986.5zTerrence Barrett, National Aeronautics and space Adrn i n istra-

tion, p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n , A u g u s t 1 9 8 6 .

Ch. 3—Polymer Matrix Composites . 93

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES

Federal R&D spending for PMCs in fiscal years1985 to 1987 is shown in table 3-3; roughly 70to 80 percent in each year was spent by the De-partment of Defense. The large drop in Federalexpenditures from 1985 to 1986 does not reflecta sharp cut in PMC R&D; rather, it can be at-tributed to the completion of large research pro-grams in 1985 and the transitioning of the tech-nology (particuIarly for carbon fiber PMCs) outof the basic and applied research categories ofthe DoD budget (6. 1, 6.2, and 6.3A). Defense ap-plications continue to drive the development ofPMCs, which are used in an estimated $80 bil-lion of weapons systems.58

Reliable PMC structures can now be designedthat satisfy all of the engineering requirements ofa given application. However, scientific under-standing of PMCs has lagged behind engineer-ing practice. To design more efficiently and cost-effectively, and to develop improved materials,it will be necessary to understand and model sev-eral important aspects of PMCs. Based on the op-portunities outlined above, some research anddevelopment priorities for PMCs are suggestedbelow,

Very Important

Processing Science

The primary goal of processing science is to beable to control the fabrication process to ensure

S~Ken neth Foster, Assistant for Materials policy, Department ofDefense, personal communication, August 1986.

Table 3-3.—Budgets for Polymer Matrix CompositeR&D in Fiscal Years 1985 to 1987 (millions of dollars)

Agency FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987

Department of Defense (6.1, 6.2, 6,3A) $ 5 5 . 9 $ 2 9 . 2 $ 3 3 . 8National Aeronautics and Space

Administration 23 8.7 5.0N a t i o n a l S c i e n c e F o u n d a t i o n 1-2 1-2National Bureau of standards

3.004 04 0.5

Department of Transportation . 0.4 0.2T o t a l $ 8 0 - 8 1 $ 4 0 - 4 1 $ 4 2 . 5

SOURCE OTA survey of agency representatives

complete and uniform cure, minimize thermalstresses, control resin content, and ensure ac-curate fiber placement. This requires models thatcan predict the influences of key process varia-bles and techniques for monitoring these varia-bles so that pressure and temperature can be ad-justed accordingly. Such models would alsoprovide useful guidelines for tool design. Atpresent, though, modeling is in a very early stageof development.

The existence of low-cost fabrication processeswill be critical to the use of new PMC systems,such as low-cost, high-performance thermoplas-tics reinforced with continuous fibers. For in-stance, methods for fabricating shapes with dou-ble curvature are needed. Another importantproblem is the impregnation and wetting of fi-ber bundles by these relatively viscous plastics.The effects of processing on microstructure re-quire further study. Similar knowledge is neededof the influence of residual thermal stresses, a par-ticular concern for resins processed at high tem-peratures. Finally, as for thermoses, processmodels are required.

Impact Damage

The resistance to impact damage of a PMCstructure has a critical effect on its reliability inservice. Impact damage barely visible to thenaked eye can cause a reduction in strength ofas much as 40 percent. 59 Impact resistance isespecially important in primary aircraft structuresand other safety-critical components. Tougherthermoplastic matrix materials promise to im-prove the impact resistance of aircraft structuresnow made with epoxy matrices.

The complexity of the impact damage processmakes modeling very difficult. However, it wouldbe very desirable to be able to relate the extentof damage to the properties of the matrix, fiber,and interphase, along with factors such as rein-

Sqcarl zwehen, General Electrlc Co., “Assessment of the Science

Base for Composite Materials, ” a cont rac tor repor t p repared for

OTA, December 1985.


forcement form. This would facilitate the devel-opment of more reliable materials and structures.In addition, an understanding of impact damagemechanisms would aid in developing protocolsfor repair of PMC structures, a field that still re-lies largely on empirical methods.

Delamination

There is a strong body of opinion that delami-nation is the most critical form of damage in PMCstructures (particularly those produced from pre-pregs). As noted above, impact damage barelyvisible on the surface can cause dramatic reduc-tions in strength through local delamination.Voids and pores between layers can also poseserious problems to the integrity of the PMC.Delamination may prove to be a problem of in-creasing severity in the future because of thetrend toward higher working strains that tend toaccentuate this mode of failure.

Analyses to date have concentrated on crackgrowth and failure associated with compressiveloading, These need to be verified and refined.In addition, the effects of combined loading, resinfracture toughness, reinforcement form, and envi-ronment need to be investigated.

Interphase

The interphase has a critical influence on thePMC in that it determines how the reinforcementproperties are translated into the properties of thecomposite structure. The characteristics of thislittle-studied region merit thorough investigation.The objective would be to develop a body ofknowledge that would guide the development offiber surface treatments, matrices, and fiber coat-ings that will optimize mechanical properties andprovide resistance to environmental degradation.

Important

Strength

The excellent strength properties of PMCs areone of the major reasons for their use. However,as with many properties of PMCs, their heter-ogeneity makes strength characteristics very com-plex. This heterogeneity gives rise to failure modesthat frequently have no counterpart in homo-

geneous materials. Even for the simplest PMCs,unidirectional laminates, there is an inadequateunderstanding of the relationships between ax-ial and transverse loading (parallel and perpen-dicular to the fiber direction) and failure. In morecomplex PMCs, containing several fiber orien-tations and various flaw populations, efforts tomodel strength have been largely empirical. It willbe important in the future to have analyticalmodels for the various failure modes of unidirec-tional PMCs and laminates that relate strengthproperties to basic constituent properties.

Fatigue

Fatigue of PMCs is an important design con-sideration. Fatigue resistance is a major advan-tage that PMCs enjoy over metals; however, thetraditional models for analyzing fatigue in metalsdo not apply to PMCs. The risks associated withfatigue failure are likely to increase because ofthe trend toward use of fibers with higher failurestrains, plus the desire to use higher designallowable for existing materials.

Ideally, it would be desirable to be able to pre-dict PMC fatigue behavior based on constituentproperties. A more realistic near-term objectiveis to understand fatigue mechanisms, and howthey are related to the properties of fibers, ma-trix, interphase, loading, and environment of thePMC. Important topics that have not receivedadequate attention are the fatigue properties ofthe reinforcements and matrix resins, and com-pression fatigue of unidirectional PMCs. In viewof the increasing interest in thermoplastics, fatigueof these materials also deserves study.

Fracture

One of the most important modes of failure inmetals is crack propagation. Arising at regions ofhigh stress, such as holes, defects, or other dis-continuities, cracks tend to grow under cyclic ten-sile load. When cracks reach a critical size, theypropagate in an unstable manner, causing fail-ure of the part in which they are located. This,in turn, may result in failure of the entire struc-ture. In contrast, failure of PMCs often resultsfrom gradual weakening caused by the accumu-lation of dispersed damages, rather than bypropagation of a single crack.


In view of the significant differences in failuremodes between metals and PMCs, use of linearelastic fracture mechanics to describe fracture inthese complex materials is controversial. It isopen to question whether there are unique valuesof fracture toughness or critical stress intensitythat describe the fracture characteristics of PMCs.To develop reliable design methods and im-proved materials in the future, it will be neces-sary to develop a body of fracture analysis thatis capable of accounting for the more complexfailure mechanisms.

Environmental Effects

The environments to which PMCs are sub-jected can have a significant effect on their prop-erties. Environments known to be especiallydamaging are those of high temperature andmoisture under load, ultraviolet radiation, andsome corrosive chemicals. The key need in theenvironmental area is to develop a thorough un-derstanding of degradation mechanisms for fibers,resins, and interphases in the environments ofgreatest concern. This knowledge will lead tomore reliable use of existing materials and pro-vide the information required to develop new,more degradation-resistant ones.

Reinforcement Forms and Hybrid PMCs

There are two main reasons for the interest innew reinforcement forms: improved through-the-thickness properties, and lower cost. A pervasiveweakness of PMC laminates of all kinds is thatthe out-of-plane strength and stiffness, being de-pendent primarily on the matrix, are much in-ferior to the in-plane properties. This is becausein conventional laminates there is no fiber rein-forcement in the thickness direction.

New reinforcement forms under developmentinclude triaxial fabrics, muItilayer fabrics, two-dimensional braids, three-dimensional braids,and various kinds of knits. I n addition, laminateshave been reinforced in the thickness directionby stitching. From an analytical standpoint, themajor drawback to fabrics, braids, and knits isthat they introduce fiber curvature that can cause

significant loss of strength compared to a uni-directional laminate. However, multidirectionalreinforcement appears to confer increased frac-ture toughness on the PMC.

Use of several types of fibers to reinforce PMCswill be driven by the desire to obtain propertiesthat cannot be achieved with a single fiber, andto reduce cost. For instance, glass fibers, whichare cheap but have a relatively low tensiIe stiff-ness, can be mixed with more costly, high-stiff-ness graphite fibers to achieve a PMC that is bothstiff and relatively cheap.

With both new reinforcement forms and hy-brid reinforcement, there is a great need for ana-lytical methods to identify the configurations re-quired to produce desired properties. Withoutsuch tools, it will be necessary to rely on humanintuition and time-consuming, costly empiricalapproaches.

Desirable

Creep Fracture

Materials subjected to sustained loading fail atstress levels lower than their static strengths. Thisphenomenon is called creep fracture. Topics thatrequire study include tensile and compressiveloading of both unidirectional PMCs and lami-nates, and the influence of temperature and envi-ronment. Because the time-dependent degrada-tion of the matrix and interphase properties aretypically greater than those of the fiber reinforce-ments, particular attention shouId be paid totransverse matrix cracking and delamination.

Viscoelastic and Creep Properties

The occurrence of significant deformation re-sulting from sustained loading can have an ad-verse effect on structural performance i n someapplications, such as reciprocating equipment,bridges, and buildings. Consequently, creep be-havior is an important material characteristic. Thissubject could benefit from development of a data-base for creep properties of various fibers, ma-trices, and PMCs, especially for compressive load-ing, which has received relatively little attention.

Chapter 4


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * * * * * * * * * * n ” * ’ ”

Current Applications and Market Opportunities . . . . . . . .Longer Term Applications.. . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Research and Development Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Introduction ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● . ● . ● ● ● ● ● ● . ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● . ● ● ● .-. .

Properties of Metal Matrix Composites ● ● ● ● . ● ● . . ● . . . ● ● .Discontinuous Reinforcement ● . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .’. . ..

. Continuous Reinforcement ● . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .MMC Properties Compared to Other Structural Materials

●Design, Processing, and Testing . . . . . . . . . . .. Design . . . ● . ● ● ● . . . . . . . ● ● * ● ● * ● ● ● . .

Processing. ● . . * . . . ● ● . . . . . . ● ● . ● ● ● . . . . ●

Costs. ● . . . ● ● .. ● , ● . . . . . . . . . . . ● ● ● ● ● ● . .. Testing . ● ● . . . . . ● ● . . . . ● . . . . . . . ● ● ● ● ● ●

Health and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . Applications.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . .

Current Applications .. . . . . . . . . .......Future Applications . .............. ...Markets . ● . . . ● . . . ● . . . .

Research and Development Priories . . . . . . .Very Important.. . .............. . . . . . .

Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Desirable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tables

,....., .*...**.... ..*.. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ,.,... . . . . . .*.*.. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .● ☛✎✎☛✎✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎

✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎

✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎

Page..... . . . . . . . . . . 99. . . . . . . .... . . 99. . . . . . .... ● .. 99. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 99. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102...... . . . . . . . . . 106... ●☛✎✎✎✎✎ . . 107. . . . . . ...,.. ● . . . 107. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.... ● . . . . . . . . . 111. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112. . . . . . . ...... . . 112. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113.... . . . . . . . . . . 115.... . . . . . . . . . . 115

● 115. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ...... . . 116. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Table No.4-1. Costs of a Representative Sample of MMC Reinforcements. . ............1014-2. Structural Properties of Representative MMCs, Compared to Other

Materials . . . . . . . . .. .. ... . . . . . . . . . . .............................1034-3. Strength and Stiffness of Some Fiber-Reinforced MMCs. . . . . . . . . . . .. ....104

4-4. Properties of 6061 Aluminum Reinforced With Silicon Carbide Particulate .1054-5. MMC Manufacturing Methods .. . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................1084-6. Selected MMC Processing Techniques and Their Characteristics . ........109

i

Chapter 4


FINDINGS

Metal matrix composites (MMCs) usually con-sist of a low-density metal, such as aluminum ormagnesium, reinforced with particulate or fibersof a ceramic material, such as silicon carbide orgraphite. Compared with unreinforced metals,MMCs offer higher specific strength and stiffness,higher operating temperature, and greater wearresistance, as well as the opportunity to tailorthese properties for a particular application.

However, MMCs also have some disadvantagescompared with metals. Chief among these are thehigher cost of fabrication for high-performanceMMCs, and lower ductility and toughness. Pres-ently, MMCs tend to cluster around two extremetypes. One consists of very high performancecomposites reinforced with expensive continu-ous fibers and requiring expensive processingmethods. The other consists of relatively low-costand low-performance composites reinforced withrelatively inexpensive particulate or fibers. Thecost of the first type is too high for any but mili-tary or space applications, whereas the cost/ben-efit advantages of the second type over unrein-forced metal alloys remain in doubt.

Current Applications and MarketOpportunities

Current markets for MMCs are primarily in mil-itary and aerospace applications. ExperimentalMMC components have been developed for usein aircraft, satellites, jet engines, missiles, and theNational Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA) space shuttle. The first production appli-cation of a particulate-reinforced MMC in theUnited States is a set of covers for a missile guid-ance system.

The most important commercial application todate is the MMC diesel engine piston made byToyota. This composite piston offers better wearresistance and high-temperature strength than thecast iron piston it replaced. It is estimated that

300,000 such pistons are produced and sold inJapan annually. This development is very impor-tant because it demonstrates that MMCs are atleast not prohibitively expensive for a very costsensitive application. Other commercial applica-tions include cutting tools and circuit-breakercontacts.

Longer Term Applications

Metal matrix composites with high specific stiff-ness and strength could be used in applicationsin which saving weight is an important factor. In-cluded in this category are robots, high-speed ma-chinery, and high-speed rotating shafts for shipsor land vehicles. Good wear resistance, alongwith high specific strength, also favors MMC usein automotive engine and brake parts. Tailorablecoefficient of thermal expansion and thermal con-ductivity make them good candidates for lasers,precision machinery, and electronic packaging.However, the current level of development ef-fort appears to be inadequate to bring about com-mercialization of any of these in the next 5 years,with the possible exception of diesel enginepistons.

Based on information now in the public do-main, the following military applications forMMCs appear attractive: high-temperature fighteraircraft engines and structures; high-temperaturemissile structures; and spacecraft structures. Test-ing of a National Aerospace Plane (NASP) pro-totype is scheduled for the early to mid 1990s,which might be too early to include MMCs. How-ever, it may be possible to incorporate MMCs inthe structure or engines of the production vehicle.


MMCs are just beginning to be used in produc-tion applications. In order to make present ma-terials more commercially attractive, and to de-

99


velop better materials, the following research anddevelopment priorities should receive attention:

● Cheaper Processes: To develop low-cost,●

highly reliable manufacturing processes, re-search should concentrate on optimizingand evaluating processes such as plasmaspraying, powder metallurgy processes,modified casting techniques, liquid metal in-filtration and diffusion bonding.

● Cheaper Materials: Development of Iower

cost fiber reinforcements is a major need.Continued development work on existingmaterials is important to lower costs as well.Coatings: Research in the area of reinforce-ment/matrix interface coatings is necessary.These coatings can prevent deleterious chem-ical reactions between matrix and reinforce-ment which weaken the composite, particu-larly at high temperature, and optimize theinterracial fiber/matrix bond.

INTRODUCTION

Metal matrix composites (MMCs) generally in dramatic improvements in MMC properties,consist of lightweight metal alloys of aluminum, but costs remain high. Continuously and discon-magnesium, or titanium, reinforced with ceramic tinuously reinforced MMCs have very differentparticulate, whiskers, or fibers.1 The reinforce- applications, and will be treated separatelyment is very important because it determines the throughout this chapter.mechanical properties, cost, and performance of Tailorability is a key advantage of all types ofa given composite. composites, but is particularly so in the case of

Composites reinforced with particulate (dis- MMCs. MMCs can be designed to fulfill require-continuous types of reinforcement) can have ments that no other materials, including other ad-costs comparable to unreinforced metals, with vanced materials, can achieve. There are a num-significantly better hardness, and somewhat bet- ber of niche applications in aerospace structurester stiffness and strength. Continuous reinforce- and electronics that capitalize on this advantage.ment (long fiber or wire reinforcement) can result

PROPERTIES OF METAL MATRIX COMPOSITES

There are considerable differences in publishedproperty data for MMCs. This is partly due to thefact that there are no industry standards forMMCs, as there are for metals. Reinforcementsand composites are typically made by proprie-tary processes, and, as a consequence, the prop-erties of materials having the same nominal com-position can be radically different. The issue isfurther clouded by the fact that many reinforce-ments and MMCs are still in the developmentalstage, and are continually being refined. Numer-ous test methods are used throughout the indus-try, and it is widely recognized that this is a ma-jor source of differences in reported properties.2

1 As used i n this chapter, the terms 1‘al u m inu m, ‘‘magnesium, ”and “titanium” denote alloys of these materials used as matrixmetals.

~Carl Zweben, “Metal Matrix Composites, ” contractor report forOTA, January 1987.

Property data given in this chapter are thereforegiven as ranges rather than as single values.

Some MMC properties cannot be measured asthey would be for monolithic metals. For in-stance, toughness is an important but hard-to-define material property. Standard fracture me-chanics tests and analytical methods for metalsare based on the assumption of self-similar crackextension; i.e., a crack will simply lengthen with-out changing shape. Composites, however, arenon homogeneous materials with complex inter-nal damage patterns. As a result, the applicabil-ity of conventional fracture mechanics to MMCsis controversial, especially for fiber-reinforced ma-terials.

—

Ch. 4—Metal Matrix Composites ● 101

Photo credit: DWA Composite Specialties, Inc.

Micrograph (75x magnification) of 20 percent volumefraction silicon carbide particulate-reinforced

2124 aluminum.

Discontinuous Reinforcement

There are two types of discontinuous reinforce-ment for MMCs: particulate and whiskers. Themost common types of particulate are alumina,boron carbide, silicon carbide, titanium carbide,and tungsten carbide. The most common typeof whisker is silicon carbide, but whiskers of alu-mina and silicon nitride have also been produced.Whiskers generally cost more than particulate,as seen in table 4-1. For instance, silicon carbidewhiskers cost $95 per pound, whereas silicon car-bide particulate costs $3 per pound. Cost pro-jections show that although this difference willdecrease as production volumes increase, par-ticulate will always have a cost advantage.3

Table 4-1 .—Costs of a Representative Sample ofMMC Reinforcements

Reinforcement Price ($/pound)

Alumina-silica fiber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Silicon carbide particulate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 a

Silicon carbide whisker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95Alumina fiber (FP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200Boron fiber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $262Graphite fiber (P-100) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 950a

Higher performance reinforcements (e.g., graphite and boron fibers) have sig-nificantly higher costs as well.aJoseph Dolowy, personal communication, DWA Composite Specialties, Inc., JuIy

1987.

SOURCE: Carl Zweben, “Metal Matrix Composites, ” contractor report for OTA,January 1987.

In terms of tailorability, a very important advan-tage in MMC applications, particulate reinforce-ment offers various desirable properties. Boroncarbide and silicon carbide, for instance, arewidely used, inexpensive, commercial abrasivesthat can offer good wear resistance as well as highspecific stiffness. Titanium carbide offers a highmelting point and chemical inertness which aredesirable properties for processing and stabilityin use. Tungsten carbide has high strength andhardness at high temperature.

In composites, a general rule is that mechani-cal properties such as strength and stiffness tendto increase as reinforcement length increases.4

Particulate can be considered to be the limit ofshort fibers. Particulate-reinforced composites areisotropic, having the same mechanical proper-ties in all directions.

In principle, whiskers should confer superiorproperties because of their higher aspect ratio(length divided by diameter). However, whiskersare ‘brittle and tend to break up into shorterlengths during processing. This reduces their rein-forcement efficiency, and makes the much highercost of whisker reinforcement hard to justify. De-velopment of improved processing techniquescould produce whisker-reinforced- MMCs withmechanical properties superior to those madefrom particuiates.

Another disadvantage of using whisker rein-forcement is that whiskers tend to become ori-ented by some processes, such as rolling and ex-trusion, producing composites with differentproperties in different directions (anisotropy).5

41 bid.5See the discussion on an isotropy in ch. 3 on Polymer Matrix Com-

posites.3Ibid

.- —


Anisotropy can be a desirable property, but it isa disadvantage if it cannot be controlled preciselyin the manufacture of the material. It is also moredifficult to pack whiskers than particulate, andthus it is possible to obtain higher reinforce-ment:matrix ratios (fiber volume fraction, v/o)with particulate. Higher reinforcement percent-ages lead to better mechanical properties suchas higher strength.

Continuous Reinforcement

In fiber reinforcement, by far the most com-mon kind of continuous reinforcement, manytypes of fibers are used; most of them are car-bon or ceramic. Carbon types are referred to asgraphite and are based on pitch or polyacryloni-trile (PAN) precursor. Ceramic types include alu-mina, silica, boron, alumina-silica, alumina-boria-silica, zirconia, magnesia, mullite, boron nitride,titanium diboride, silicon carbide, and boron car-bide. All of these fibers are brittle, flaw-sensitivematerials. As such, they exhibit the phenomenonof size effect (see ch. 2); i.e., the strength of thesefibers decreases as the length increases.

Fiber/matrix interface coatings offer anotherdimension of tailorability to MMCs. Coatings arevery important to the behavior of MMCs to pre-vent undesirable reactions, improve the strengthof the fibers, and tailor the bond strength betweenfiber and matrix. A reaction barrier is needed forsome fiber/matrix combinations, particularly

.

Photo credit: DWA Composite Specialties, Inc.

Cross-section of continuous graphite fiber-reinforcedaluminum composite: 52 percent volume fraction fiber,

uniaxially reinforced. 300x magnification

when the composite is exposed to high temper-atures in processing or service. For example, bo-ron fiber can be coated with boron carbide andsilicon carbide reaction barriers to prevent diffu-sion and chemical reactions with the matrix thatdecrease the strength of the composite. Aluminafibers can be given a surface coating of silica toimprove tensile strength.

Coatings can also be used to tailor the bondstrength between fiber and matrix. If adhesionbetween fiber and matrix is too good, cracks inthe matrix propagate right through the fibers, andthe composite is brittle. By reducing the bondstrength, coatings can enhance crack deflectionat the interface, and lead to higher energy ab-sorption during fracture through fiber pulloutmechanisms. Sometimes a coating is needed topromote wetting between the matrix and the fi-ber, and thereby achieve a good bond. Graph-ite can be coated with titanium diboride in or-der to promote wetting.

processing techniques, as well as coatings, canbe used to control deleterious fiber/matrix inter-actions. The application of pressure can be usedto force intimate contact between fiber and ma-trix and thus promote wetting; squeeze castingis one process that does this.

A less common type of continuous reinforce-ment is wire reinforcement. Wires are made ofsuch metals as titanium, tungsten, molybdenum,beryllium, and stainless steel. Such wires offersome tailorability for certain niche applications;for example, tungsten wire offers good high-tem-perature creep resistance, which is an advantagein fighter aircraft jet engines and other aerospaceapplications.

MMC Properties Compared toOther Structural Materials

Table 4-2 compares the most important mate-rial properties of MMCs with those of other struc-tural materials discussed in this assessment.

Strength and Stiffness

The stiffnesses and strengths of particulate-rein-forced aluminum MMCs are significantly betterthan those of the aluminum matrix. For exam-

.

Ch. 4—Metal Matrix Composites ●

pie, at a volume fraction of 40 percent silicon car-bide particulate reinforcement, the strength isabout 65 percent greater than that of the 6061aluminum matrix, and the stiffness is doubled.6

Particulate-reinforced MMCs, which are isotropicmaterials, have lower strength than the axialstrength (parallel to the direction of continuousfiber reinforcement) of advanced polymer matrixcomposites (PMCs), see table 4-2. However, theyhave much better strength than the transversestrength (perpendicular to the direction of con-tinuous fiber reinforcement) of PMCs. The stiff-ness of particulate MMCs can be considered tobe about the same as that of PMCs.

Unlike particulate-reinforced MMCs and mono-lithic metals in general, fiber-reinforced MMCscan be highly an isotropic, having different strengthsand stiffnesses in different directions. The high-est values of strength and stiffness are achievedalong the direction of fiber reinforcement. In thisdirection, strength and stiffness are much higherthan in the unreinforced metal, as shown in ta-ble 4-2. In fact, the stiffness in the axial directioncan be as high as six times that of the matrix ma-terial in a graphite fiber/aluminum matrix com-posite: see table 4-3. However, in the transversedirections, strength values show no improvementover the matrix metal. Transverse strengths andstiffnesses of continuous fiber-reinforced MMCscompared to PMCs are very good, thereby giv-ing MMCs an important advantage over the lead-

bCarl Zweben, “Metal ,Matrlx Composites, ” contractor report fotOTA, January 1987.

103

ing PMCs in structures subject to high transversestresses.

High values of specific strength and specificstiffness (strength and stiffness divided by den-sity) are desirable for high-strength, low-weightapplications such as aircraft structures. Typically,particulate MMCs have somewhat better specificstrength and specific stiffness than the matrixmetal, and fiber-reinforced MMCs have muchbetter specific strength and specific stiffness thanthe matrix metal.

Unfortunately, MMCs have a higher densitythan PMCs, making specific strength and specificstiffness lower than those for PMCs in the axialdirection. Transverse specific strength and spe-cific stiffness of MMCs are still better than thoseof PMCs.

High-Temperature Properties

MMCs offer improved elevated-temperaturestrength and modulus over both PMCs and me-tals. Reinforcements make it possible to extendthe useful temperature range of low density me-tals such as aluminum, which have limited high-temperature capability (see table 4-2). MMCs typi-cally have higher strength and stiffness than PMCsat 200 to 300° C (342 to 5720 F), although de-velopment of resins with higher temperature ca-pabilities may be eroding this advantage. Noother structural material, however, can competewith ceramics at very high temperature.

Fiber-reinforced MMCs experience matrix/rein-forcement interface reactions at high tempera-

Table 4.2.—Structural Properties of Representative MMCs, Compared to Other Materials

Matrix(l)* Particulate(2)* Fiber(3)*Property metala MMC a MMC a PMCb Ceramic b

Strength (M Pa) (axial) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -290Stiffness (G Pa) (axial). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 7 0Specific strength (axial). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -100Specific gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5-2.8Transverse strength (MPa). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -290Transverse stiffness (GPa) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Same as axialMaximum use temperature (“C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180Plane strain fracture toughness (MPa-m½) . . . . . . 18-35

290-480 620-1,24080-140 130-450

100-170 250-390-2 .8 2.5-3.2

290-480 30-170Same as axial 34-173

300 30012-35 —

820-1,680 140-3,90061-224 97-400

630-670 51-6701.3-2.5 2.7-5.811-56 140-3,9003-12 Same as axial260 1,200-1,600— 3-9

PMC IS used to denote a range of materials including graphite/epoxy, graphite/polylmlde, boron/polyimide, and S-glass/epoxyCeramic is used to denote a range of materials including zirconia, silicon carbide, and silicon nitride“NOTE: (1) 6061 aluminum

(2) 6061 aluminum reinforced with 0-400/0 volume fractions of SiC particulate(3) 6061 aluminum reinforced with 50°/0 volume fractions of fibers of graphite, boron. silicon carbide, or alumina

SOURCES a Carl Zweben, “Metal Matrix Composites, ” contractor report for OTA, January 1987b "Guide to Selecting Engineered Materials. ” Advanced Materials and Processes, vol. 2, No 1, June 1987


Table 4-3.—Strength and Stiffness of SomeFiber. Reinforced MMCs (Fiber V/O = 50%)

Tensile Tensilestrength strength Stiffness Stiffness

Material (axial) (transverse) (axial) (transverse)Matrix material MPa MPa GPa GPa

Aluminum 6061-T6 ...., 290Titanium Ti-6AI-4V 1170

CompositeGraphite a/aluminum . . . 690Boron/aluminum. . . . . 1240Silicon carbideb/

aluminum . . . . . 1240Silicon carbidec/

aluminum . . . . . . . . 1040Alumina d/aluminum . . . . . 620Silicon carbide8/

titanium . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1720Graphite a/copper . . . . . . . 512

2901170

30140

100

70170

34031

70114

450205

205

130205

260464

70114

34140

140

99140

17349

Properly Improvements of MMCs over unreinforced metals can be significant For example, theaxial stiffness of graphite fiber-reinforced aluminum is roughly 6 times greater than that of theunreinforced aluminum The axial tensile strength of silicon carbide fiber-reinforced aluminum IS

about 4 times greater than that of the unreinforced aluminumaP-120bAVCO monofilamentc"Nicalon"dFibe r "FP"

‘AVCO monofilament

SOURCES: For all composites except graophit/copper: Carl Zweben, “Metal Matrix Composites, ”contractor report for OTA, January 1987. For graphite/copper only: C Kaufmann, Ameri-can Cyanamid, personal communication, Oct. 19, 1987.

tures. In addition, the transverse high-tempera-ture strength of fiber-reinforced MMCs is only asgood as that of the matrix metal, since mechani-cal properties in the transverse direction are dom-inated by the matrix and the fiber/matrix inter-face. For example, at 320 C (608° F), the axialtensile strength of boron fiber-reinforced alumi-num is about 1.1 gigapascals (GPa) compared toonly 0.07 GPa for monolithic 6061 aluminum,whereas the transverse strength is 0.08 GPa,about the same as that for the monolithic 6061.7

Wear Resistance

Wear resistance of MMCs is excellent comparedto that of monolithic metals and PMCs, owing tothe presence of the hard ceramic reinforcements.For instance, in one test, the abrasive wear of2024 aluminum under a 1 kilogram load wasshown to be 6 times greater than the wear of thesame alloy containing 20 percent volume frac-tion of silicon carbide whiskers.8 An alumina-silicafiber-reinforced aluminum piston used in Toyota

automobiles demonstrated an 85 percent improve-ment in wear resistance over the cast iron pis-ton with nickel insert used previously.9

Fracture and Toughness

There is a wide variation in fracture toughnessamong MMCs, although it is generally lower thanthat of the monolithic metal. Fracture toughnesscan vary between 65 and 100 percent of the frac-ture toughness of the monolithic metal alloy.10

Lower toughness is a trade-off for higher strengthand stiffness. Particulate-reinforced MMCs havea lower ultimate tensile strain than the unrein-forced metals (see table 4-4) which may be im-portant in some applications. This brittleness cancomplicate the design process and make joiningmore difficult as well. Comparison to PMCs is dif-ficult, because the toughness of PMCs is verytemperature-dependent.

Thermal Properties

The introduction of silicon carbide particulateinto aluminum results in materials having lowercoefficients of thermal expansion, a desirableproperty for some types of applications. By choos-ing an appropriate composition, the coefficient

7 Ibid.

8 lbid.9 lbid.10 lbid.

Ch. 4—Metal Matrix Composites . 105

Table 4-4.—Properties of 6061 Aluminum ReinforcedWith Silicon Carbide Particulate

TensileStiffness strength Tensile

Reinforcement (G Pa) (M Pa) strain

0% 10 290 16.O%10 83 7.015 86 3&l 6.520 90 430 6.025 103 — 3.530 117 470 2.035 124 — 1.040 140 480 0.6

Note the sharp rise in stiffness in the 400/0 composite (140 GPa) compared tothe unreinforced aluminum (10 GPa). Ultimate tensile strength nearly doublesand tensile strain decreases nearly a full order of magnitude.

SOURCE: Carl Zweben, “Metal Matrix Composites,” contractor report for OTA,January 1987.

of thermal expansion can be near zero in someMMCs. MMCs also tend to be good heat conduc-tors. Using high thermal conductivity graphitefibers, aluminum-matrix or copper-matrix MMCscan have very high thermal conductivity, com-pared with other types of composites.


In terms of environmental stability, MMCs havetwo advantages over PMCs. First, they suffer less

water damage than PMCs which can absorbmoisture, thereby reducing their high-tempera-ture performance. Second, some MMCs, such asreinforced titanium, can stand high-temperaturecorrosive environments, unlike PMCs.

Nevertheless, some MMCs are subject to envi-ronmental degradation not found in PMCs. Forinstance, graphite fibers undergo a galvanic re-action with aluminum. This can be a problemwhen the graphite/aluminum interface is exposedto air or moisture. In addition, PMCs are resis-tant to attack by many chemicals (e.g., acids) thatcorrode aluminum, steel, and magnesium.

cos t

A major disadvantage of MMCs compared tomost other structural materials is that they aregenerally more expensive. Both constituent ma-terial costs and processing costs are higher. Costsof higher performance reinforcements (mostlyfibers) are high, and lower cost reinforcements(mostly particulate) may not yield dramatic im-provements in performance. Cost/benefit ratiosof most MMCs dictate that they be used only inhigh-performance applications. However, both

MICROWAVE CIRCUIT PACKAGING

KOVAR

WEIGHT = 42

THERMALCONDUCTIVITY

METAL MATRIX COMPOSITE

g WEIGHT = 15 g

9.6 BTU THERMAL 74 BTU=HR-FT-°F CONDUCTIVITY = HR-FT-°F

Photo credit: General Electric Co.

Silicon carbide particle-reinforced aluminum microwave package


the material and production costs may drop asmore experience is gained in MMC production.

Tailorability of Properties

In some applications, MMCs offer unique com-binations of properties that cannot be found inother materials. Electronics packaging for aircraftrequires a hard-to-achieve combination of lowcoefficient of thermal expansion, high thermalconductivity, and low density. Certain MMCs canmeet these requirements, replacing beryllium,which is scarce and presents toxicity problems.

Several other examples can be cited to illus-trate the unique advantages of MMCs in specialtyapplications. A large heat transfer coefficient isdesirable for space-based radiators; this propertyis offered by graphite fiber-reinforced copper, alu-minum, and titanium (although this latter fiber/matrix combination unfortunately has some in-terface reaction problems). The higher transversestrengths of MMCs compared to PMCs have ledto several MMC space applications, such as thespace shuttle orbiter struts, made of boron fiber-reinforced aluminum.

One of the most important applications ofMMCs is the Toyota truck diesel engine piston,produced at a rate of about 300,000 pistons perYear.11 This consists of aluminum selectively rein-forced in the critical region of the top ring groovewith a ring-shaped ceramic fiber preform. (A pre-form is an assemblage of reinforcements in theshape of the final product that can be infiltratedwith the matrix to form a composite.)

Two types of fibers are used: alumina andalumina-silica. Both are relatively low-cost ma-terials originally developed for furnace insulation.

11 Ibid. —

Photo credit: Toyota Motor Corp.

Aluminum diesel engine piston with local fiberreinforcement in ring groove area

Use of local reinforcement to improve wear re-sistance makes possible the elimination of nickeland cast iron inserts. This reduces piston weightand increases thermal conductivity, improvingengine performance and reducing vibration.

This approach minimizes cost and thereby makesMMCs more competitive with cast iron. This de-sign not only offers better wear resistance andbetter high-temperature strength but also elimi-nates one type of part failure associated with thedesign it replaced. It is considered by some tobe a development of historic proportions becauseit demonstrates that MMCs can be reliably massproduced. It also shows that at least one type ofaluminum matrix MMC can perform reliably ina very severe environment.


In ceramics and polymer matrix composites billets or sheets and later machined to a finalmanufacturing, the material is formed to its final shape. Viable, inexpensive near-net-shape tech-shape as the microstructure of the material is niques for forming MMCs have not been success-formed. MMCs can be produced in this way, or, fully developed as yet, and there is still a debateas is traditionally done with metals, formed into about on the advantages of producing standard


Photo credit: AVCO Corp.

Centrifugal casting of silicon carbide-reinforcedaluminum.

shapes to be machined by the purchaser to finalform, compared to the custom production ofnear-net-shape parts. Forming of net-shape MMCparts necessitates close integration of design andmanufacture, where production of standard MMCstructural shapes does not.

Design

The variability of metal matrix composite prop-erties is a handicap to designing with these ma-terials. There are currently no design aids suchas property databases, performance standards,and standard test methods. In addition, mostdesigners are much more familiar with monolithicmetals. The lack of experience with MMCs in-creases the design and manufacturing costs asso-ciated with the development of a new product.As with ceramic structures, brittleness is a newand difficult concept to most designers. MMCsare brittle materials, and new methods of designwill become important in the development ofMMC applications.

Processing

Because MMC technology is hardly beyond thestage of R&D at present, costs for all methods ofproducing MMCs are still high. Manufacturingmethods must ensure good bonding between ma-trix and reinforcement, and must not result in un-desirable matrix/fiber interracial reactions.

MMC production processes can be divided intoprimary and secondary processing methods,though these categories are not as distinct as isthe case with monolithic metals. Primary proc-esses (those processes used first to form the ma-terial) can be broken down into combining andconsolidation operations. Secondary processescan be either shaping or joining operations. Ta-ble 4-5 shows the manufacturing methods dis-cussed here and notes which types of operationsare included in each method.

As with ceramics, net-shape methods are veryimportant manufacturing processes. The machin-ing of MMCs is very difficult and costly in thatMMCs are very abrasive, and diamond tools areneeded. In addition, it is desirable to reduce theamount of scrap left from the machining proc-ess because the materials themselves are very ex-pensive.

Continuous Reinforcement12

The following discussion covers the primaryand secondary processes involved in the manu-facture of MMCs with continuous reinforcement.

Primary Processes.– Basic methods of combin-ing and consolidating MMCs include liquid metalinfiltration, modified casting processes, and depo-sition methods such as plasma spraying. Hotpressing consolidates and shapes MMCs. Diffu-sion bonding consolidates, shapes and joinsMMCs. See table 4-6 for selected MMC process-ing methods and their characteristics.

There is considerably more disagreement onwhat is the most promising method for process-ing fiber-reinforced MMCs than there is for proc-essing of particulate-reinforced MMCs. The Toyotadiesel engine piston has been heralded as an ex-ample of the promise of modified casting tech-niques for keeping costs down. Critics charge thatthese types of casting techniques have not provenadequate for manufacturing MMCs with desira-ble mechanical properties. (The Toyota piston

12 As examples in the following discussion of processing, two com-

mon types of particulate- and fiber-reinforced composites will bereferred to as needed: silicon carbide particulate-reinforced alu-minum, and boron fiber-reinforced alum inure.

108 ● Advanced Materials by D e s i g n

Table 4-5.—MMC Manufacturing Methods

C o m b i n e s C o n s o l i d a t e s S h a p e s J o i n s

Primary methods:Casting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x x

Squeeze casting,compocast ing,gravity casting,low-pressure casting

Diffusion bonding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x x

Liquid infiltration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xGravity,inert gas pressure,vacuum infiltration

Deposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X xChemical coating,plasma spraying,chemical vapor deposition,physical vapor deposition,electrochemical plating

Powder processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X x xHot pressing,ball mill mixing,vacuum pressing,extrusion, rolling—

Secondary methods:Shaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Forging, extruding, rolling,bending, shearing, spinning,machining

Machining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xTurning, boring,drilling, milling,sawing, grinding, routing,electrical discharge machiningchemical milling,electrochemical milling

Forming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x xPress brake,superplastic,creep forming

Bonding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xAdhesive, diffusion

Fastening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xSoldering, brazing, welding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xSOURCE: Carl Zweben, “Metal Matrix Composites, ” contractor report for OTA, January 1987.

uses fiber reinforcement mostly for wear resis-tance and less for more universally importantproperties such as strength.) Some industry MMCadvocates suggest that processes such as diffu-sion bonding and plasma spraying are more prom-ising for achieving high performance, and thatlower costs will come only with more produc-tion experience with these processes.

secondary Processes.–Machining processesfor MMCs reinforced with ceramic materials, which

expensive than for monolithic structural metals.As a rule, diamond tools are required becausecarbide and other tools wear out too quickly. De-spite this limitation, all of the basic mechanicalmethods, such as drilling, sawing, milling, andturning have been proven to be effective withMMCs. Electrical discharge machining also hasbeen shown to be effective.

Mechanical fastening methods, such as rivet-ing and bolting have been found to work for

are hard and abrasive, generally are much more continuously-reinforced MMCs. The same is true

Ch. 4—Metal Matr ix Composi tes ● 1 0 9

Table 4-6.—Selected MMC Processing Techniquesand Their Characteristics

Techniques Characteristics

For fiber-reinforced MMCs:Liquid metal infiltration near-net-shape parts

(low pressure) economicalhigh porosityoxidation of matrix and fibernot reliable as yet

Liquid metal infiltration (intert gas less porosity and oxidation than low pressurepressure, vacuum) techniques

Squeeze casting

Low pressure casting near-net-shape partslow costexpensive preforms requiredthree-dimensional preforms are difficult to make

good fiber wettinglower porosityexpensive molds neededlarge capacity presses needed

Plasma spraying

Diffusion bonding

potential for lower processing costs

lower temperatures than hot pressingreduces fiber/matrix interactionsnot capable of net-shape parts except simple

shapesslow, expensivefiber damage can occur

Hot Pressing heats matrix above melt temperature, which candegrade reinforcement

For particulate-reinforced MMCs:Powder metal lurgy high volume fractions of particulate are possible

(better properties)powders are expensivenot for near-net-shape parts

Liquid metal inf i l trat ion net-shape partscan use ingots rather than powderslower volume fraction of particulate (means

lower mechanical properties)

Squeeze casting may offer cost advantage; however molds andpresses may be expensive

SOURCE Carl Zweben, “Metal Matrix Composites, ” contractor report for OTA, January 1987

for adhesive bonding. Boron fiber-reinforced alu-minum pieces can be metallurgically joined bysoldering, brazing, resistance welding and diffu-sion bonding.

Discontinuous Reinforcement

The following discussion covers the primaryand secondary processes involved in the manufac-ture of MMCs with discontinuous reinforcement.

Primary Processes.–The most common meth-ods for producing particulate- and whisker-rein-

forced MMCs are powder processing techniques.There has not been much success at producingnear-net-shape structures as yet. 13 (See discussionin chapter 2 on the desirabiIity of near-net-shapeprocessing.) Other processes for discontinuously-reinforced MMCs are Iiquid metal infiltration andcasting techniques (see table 4-6).

At this time, there is no one MMC manufac-turing method that holds great promise for reduc-


Photo credit: AVCO Specialty Materials

Centrifugal casting around braided tube of SiCfibers and yarn.


Diffusion bonded SiC fiber-reinforced titanium:cross section of a hollow turbine blade.

ing costs, although there seems to be some agree-ment that for particulate-reinforced MMCs, liquidmetal infiltration and powder metallurgy techniquesare likely candidates for future development.

Secondary Processes.–One of the major ad-vantages of particulate- and whisker-reinforcedMMCs is that most of the conventional metal-working processes can be used with minor mod-ifications (see table 4-5), Methods demonstratedinclude forging, extruding, rolling, bending,shearing, and machining. Although they are ex-pensive, all conventional machining methodshave been found to work for these materials, in-cluding turning, milling, and grinding.


Silicon carbide fiber-reinforced aluminum shaped byelectrical discharge machining.

A wide variety of joining methods can be usedincluding mechanical fastening techniques, met-allurgical methods employed with monolithicmetals, and adhesive bonding as used for PMCs.

costs

MMC costs are currently very high, and forthem to come down, there must be some stand-ardization and a reliable compilation of materi-als properties (in a form such as a design data-base). This can be achieved only through greaterproduction experience with MMC materials.Some experts argue that entirely new materialsand processes must be found that are cheaperthan the present ones. Opponents of this viewhold that development of new processes and ma-terials will delay a decrease in costs of existingmaterials, because it will take much longer to gainthe production experience necessary.

Most present users buy preformed shapes, suchas billets, plates, bars and tubes, and then ma-chine these shapes to specification. MMCs arenot currently sold in standard sizes; users can or-der any size, manufactured to order. This lackof standardization keeps prices for shapes high.Some users produce their own MMCs for use in-house. For example, Lockheed Georgia producessilicon carbide fiber-reinforced aluminum matrixcomposites for designing, manufacturing and test-ing fighter aircraft fins.


The cost of an MMC part depends on manyfactors including shape, type of matrix and rein-forcement, reinforcement volume fraction, rein-forcement orientation, primary and secondaryfabrication methods, tooling costs, and numberof parts in the production run. At present, thereis little information available on production costs.The only items produced in any quantity are theToyota engine pistons. Costs for this applicationare proprietary information, but the costs of theseMMCs are at least not prohibitive in a very cost-sensitive product.

Costs are very volume sensitive; high costs keepvolumes low, and low volumes mean high costs.Of course, some materials are inherently expen-sive and will never be cheap enough for wide-spread commercial use, regardless of volume.

With the exception of alumina-silica discontinu-ous reinforcement fibers, reinforcement pricesare orders of magnitude higher than those of me-tals used in mass production items such as au-tomobiles. Unfortunately, the stiffness of alumina-silica fibers is not substantially greater than thatof aluminum. The room-temperature strength ofaluminum reinforced with these fibers also showslittle or no improvement over monolithic alumi-num, although wear resistance and elevated-temperature strength are enhanced. The signifi-cance of this is that the fibers that provide majorimprovements in material properties are quite ex-pensive, while use of low-cost alumina-silicafibers provides only modest gains in strength andstiffness.

Testing

Unlike monolithic metals, in which the maintypes of flaws are cracks, porosity, and inclusions,

composites are complex, heterogeneous mate-rials that are susceptible to more kinds of flaws,including delamination, fiber misalignment, andfiber fracture.

Failure in monolithic metals occurs primarilyby crack propagation. The analytical tool calledlinear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) is usedto predict the stress levels at which cracks inmetals will propagate unstably, causing failure.Failure modes in composites, especially thosereinforced with fibers or whiskers, are far morecomplex, and there are no verified analyticalmethods to predict failure stress levels associatedwith observed defects. As a consequence, em-pirical methods have to be used to evaluate howcritical a given flaw is in an MMC.

Two basic methods have been established asreliable flaw-detection techniques for MMCs:radiography and ultrasonic C-scan. Radiography,useful only for thin panels, detects fiber misalign-ment and fractures. C-scan identifies delamina-tion and voids. There are no existing nondestruc-tive evaluation (N DE) methods for reinforcementdegradation in MMCs.

The costs of NDE methods for MMCs shouldbe no greater than for monolithic metals. How-ever, the reliability of manufacturing processesfor these materials has not been established andMMCs cannot be reliably or repeatably producedas yet. Because fabrication processes are not de-pendable at present, it is generally necessary touse NDE for MMCs in cases where testing wouldnot be employed at all, or as extensively, formonolithic metals, This additional cost factorshould decrease as experience and confidenceare gained with MMCs.

HEALTH AND SAFETY

There is little documentation as yet of safe han- Health hazards associated with MMCs are sim-dling and machining practices for MMCs. Mate- ilar to those found in the production of ceram-rials handling practices are given by materials ics and PMCs. As with ceramics the most serioussafety data sheets, and few yet exist for MMCs.However, there is one materials safety data sheetthat applies to the MMC production process of lqRObefl BUffenbarger, I rlternational Assoclatlon of Machinists andplasma spray ing.14 Aerospace Workers, personal communication, March 23, 1987.


health hazard is associated with the possible car- boria-silica. The effects of ceramic fibers on hu-cinogenic effects of ceramic fibers due to their mans are largely unknown. Until such data be-size and shape. MMC reinforcement fibers fall- come available, the indications discussed in chap-ing in this category include alumina, alumina- ter 2 for ceramics also apply to the manufacturesilica, graphite, boron carbide, and alumina- of MMCs reinforced with these fibers.

APPLICATIONS

There are very few commercial applications ofMMCs at the present time. Industry observers be-lieve that the level of development effort in theUnited States is not large enough to lead to sig-nificant near-term commercial use of MMCs.However, the Toyota truck diesel engine pistonhas spurred the major U.S. automakers to under-take preliminary activity in MMCs. Although con-siderable interest in these materials is being gen-erated in the United States, it will be decadesbefore they are likely to have an appreciable im-pact on production levels of competing materials.

MMCs are not competing solely with mono-lithic metals; they are also competing with thewhole range of advanced materials, includingPMCs, ceramics, and other new metal alloys. Itis not yet clear whether, compared to PMCs, ce-ramics, and monolithic metals, MMCs will havebig enough performance advantages to warrantuse in a wide variety of applications. In fact,MMCs may be limited to niche applications inwhich the combinations of properties requiredcannot be satisfied by other structural materials.

The properties that make MMCs attractive arehigh strength and stiffness, good wear resistance,and tailorable coefficient of thermal expansionand thermal conductivity. Furthermore, develop-ment of high-temperature MMCs has been citedas a way to help reduce U.S. dependence on crit-ical and strategic materials, such as manganeseand cobalt. ’ 5 The following sections describe thecurrent and future applications for which theseproperties are of value.

Current Applications

Current MMC markets in the United States areprimarily military. MMCs have potential for usein aircraft structures, aircraft engines, and navalweapons systems. Experimental MMC compo-nents were first developed for applications in air-craft, jet engines, rockets, and the space shuttle.There has been little government funding ofMMCs for commercial applications in the UnitedStates, and only a small number of specializedapplications have been developed by private in-dustry.

Military/Space

The high stiffness and compression strength andlow density of boron fiber-reinforced aluminumled to its use in production space shuttle orbiterstruts. Its high cost has prevented wider use.

The National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-tration (NASA) Hubble Space Telescope uses twoantenna masts made of aluminum reinforced withP-100 pitch-based graphite fibers. This materialwas selected because of its high specific stiffnessand low coefficient of thermal expansion. 16 Thismaterial replaced a dimensionally stable telescopemount and an aluminum waveguide, resulting ina 70 percent weight savings. 17

Two companies are producing silicon carbideparticulate-reinforced aluminum instrument cov-ers for a missile guidance system. This is the firstproduction application of particulate-reinforcedMMCsin the United States.

IJzweben, op. cit., January 1987

161bid.

I Twilllam C, Riley, Research Opportu nites, Inc., personal com-

munication, October 27, 1987.


AIRFOIL CROSS SECTION

X75 X100

Photo credit: NASA Lewis Research Center

Tungsten wire-reinforced super alloy gas turbineengine blade

Commercial

The Toyota piston has stimulated a consider-able interest in MMCs for pistons and other au-tomotive parts on a worldwide basis. Other com-ponents now being evaluated by automakersworld-wide include connecting rods, cam fol-lowers, cylinder liners, brake parts, and driveshafts.

Experimental MMC bearings have been testedon railroad cars in the United Kingdom. An ex-perimental material for electronic applications hasbeen developed in Japan, consisting of copperreinforced with graphite fiber, Another electricaluse of MMCs is in circuit breakers. Graphite-reinforced copper used as a “compliant layer”minimizes thermal stresses in an experimentalmagnetohydrodynamic (MHD) generator ceramicchannel in Japan. An aluminum tennis racketselectively reinforced with boron fiber was soldcommercially in the United States for a brief timeduring the 1970s,

Future Applications

Future applications include those which couldbe possible in the next 5 to 15 years.

Photo credit: Advanced Composite Materials

Missile guidance system covers of silicon carbideparticle-reinforced aluminum.

Military/Space

Based on information in the public domain, thefollowing applications appear likely to be devel-oped in the United States: high-temperaturefighter aircraft engines and structures, high-tem-perature missile structures, spacecraft structures,high-speed mechanical systems, and electronicpackaging.

Development of applications such as hyper-sonic aircraft, which will require efficient high-temperature structural materials, will undoubt-edly lead to increasing interest in MMCs.

Commercial

Commercial applications in the next 5 years arelikely to be limited to diesel engine pistons, andperhaps sporting goods such as golf clubs, tennisrackets, skis, and fishing poles. There are a num-

.—— .


ber of potential applications that are technicallypossible but for which the current level of devel-opment effort is inadequate to bring about com-mercialization in the next 5 years; these include:brake components, push rods, rocker arms, ma-chinery and robot components, computer equip-ment, prosthetics, and electronic packaging.

High Specific Stiffness and Strength.–MMCmaterials with high specific stiffness and strengthare likely to have special merit in applications inwhich weight will be a critical factor. Includedin this category are land-based vehicles, aircraft,ships, machinery in which parts experience highaccelerations and decelerations, high-speed shaftsand rotating devices subject to strong centrifu-gal forces.

The high value of weight in aircraft makes useof MMCs a strong possibility for structural appli-cations, as well as for engine and other mechan-ical system components. Mechanical propertiesof MMCs could be important for a number ofmedical applications, including replacement joints,bone splices, prosthetics, and wheelchairs.

There are numerous industrial machinery com-ponents that could benefit from the superior spe-cific strength and stiffness of MMCs. For exam-ple, high-speed packaging machines typicallyhave reciprocating parts. Some types of high-speed machine tools have been developed to thepoint where the limiting factor is the mass of theassemblies holding the cutting or grinding tools,which experience rapid accelerations and de-celerations. Further productivity improvementswill require materials with higher specific me-chanical properties. Computer peripheral equip-ment, such as printers, tape drives, and magneticdisk devices commonly have components thatmust move rapidly. MMCs are well suited forsuch parts.

The excellent mechanical properties of MMCsmake them prime candidates for future applica-tion in robots, in which the weight and inertiaof the components have a major effect on per-formance and load capacity. Centrifugal forcesare a major design consideration in high-speedrotating equipment, such as centrifuges, gener-ators, and turbines. As these forces are directlyproportional to the mass of the rotating compo-

nents, use of materials with high specific prop-erties - MMCs - will be a way of achieving futureperformance goals.

For high-speed rotating shafts, such as automo-bile and truck drive shafts, a major design con-sideration is that the rotational speed at whichthe shaft starts to vibrate unstably, called the crit-ical speed, must be higher than the operatingspeed. As critical speed depends on the ratio ofstiffness to density, the high specific stiffness ofMMCs makes them attractive candidates for thisapplication.

Attractive Thermal Properties. -There are anumber of potential future applications for whichthe unique combinations of physical propertiesof MMCs will be advantageous. For example, thespecial needs of electronic components presentparticularly attractive opportunities.

Electronic devices use many ceramic and ce-ramic-like materials, that are brittle and have lowcoefficients of thermal expansion (CTEs). Exam-ples are ceramic substrates such as alumina andberyllia, and semiconductors such as silicon andgallium arsenide. These components frequentlyare housed in small, metallic packages. MMCscan help prevent fracture of the components orfailure of the solder or adhesive used to mountthese components, since the CTE of the packagecan be tailored to match that of the device.


Another des i rab le feature of packaging mate-

rials is high thermal conductivity to dissipate heat

generated in the system, since the reliability ofelectronic chips decreases as operating temper-ature increases. Two of the more common me-tals now used in packaging are molybdenum andKovar, a nickel-iron alloy. The thermal conduc-tivity of Kovar is quite low, only about 5 percentof that of copper, and it cannot be used in appli-cations in which large amounts of heat must bedissipated. Molybdenum, which is more expen-sive and difficuIt to machine, is normally used insuch cases. MMCs (e. g., with a high thermal con-ductivity copper matrix) could be used insteadof these two materials. Examples of potential fu-ture applications include heat sinks, power semi-conductor electrodes, and microwave carriers.

The low CTE that can be achieved with someMMCs makes them attractive for use in precisionmachinery that undergoes significant temperaturechange. For example, machines that assembleprecision devices are commonly aligned whencold. After the machines warm up, thermal ex-pansion frequently causes them to go out of align-ment. This results in defective parts and downtime required for realignment. Laser devices,which require extremely stable cavity lengths, areanother potential application for which low CTEis an advantage.

Markets

Market projections for MMCs vary widely. Onemarket forecast by C. H. Kline is that MMCs willplay no significant role in the current advancedcomposite markets until after 1995.18 A secondforecast (Technomic Consultants) is that U.S. non-military uses of MMCs will reach $100 million peryear by 1994, and world-wide commercial useswill reach $2 billion per year. 19

There does seem to be agreement though, thatin the United States, MMC materials are likely tobe used primarily in military and space applica-tions, and, to a much smaller degree, in electronicand automotive applications. Because MMC ma-terials are currently used mainly for research pur-poses, the markets for them are now only a fewthousand pounds per year.20 Materials costs shoulddecrease with time, as production volumes in-crease. However, the actual downward trend hasbeen slower than most predictions, and the cost/performance benefits of MMCs have yet to bedemonstrated over alternative materials in largevolume applications.

—.. —lgjacques shou~ens, Metal Matrix Composites Information Anal-

ysis Center (MMCIAC), personal communicat ion, March 27, 1987.lglbid.

ZOI bid.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIESFederal funding of MMC research and devel-

opment (R&D) comes mainly from the military.Combined totals for the three services plus theDefense Advanced Research Projects Agency(DARPA) for 6.1,6.2, and 6.3A money were $29.7million for fiscal year 1987.21 There are a num-ber of classified projects, and projects in othercategories of funds, that also involve MMCs. Al-though the Department of Defense is the majorgovernment funding source, NASA also fundsMMC research. NASA plans to provide $8.6 mil-lion for MMCs in fiscal year 1988, up from $5.6million in fiscal year 1987.22

~ 1 Jerome” Persh, Department of Defense, personal comm u nlca-

tlon, August 1987.~~Brlan Qulgley, NatlOndl Aeronautics and Space Admin is t ra t ion,

p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n , D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 7 .

The following section describes R&D prioritiesfor MMCs in three broad categories of descend-ing priority. These categories reflect a consensusas determined by OTA of research that needs tobe done in order to promote the developmentof these materials.

Very Important

Cheaper Processes

First in importance is the need for low-cost,highly-reliable manufacturing processes. Severalindustry experts advocate emphasis on modifiedcasting processes; others suggest diffusion bond-ing and liquid metal infiltration as likely candi-dates for production of fiber-reinforced MMCs.


There is some agreement that p lasma spray ing

is also a promising method. For particulate-rein-forced MMCs, powder metallurgy and liquid in-filtration techniques are considered most prom-ising. To develop near-term applications, researchshould concentrate on optimizing and evaluat-ing these processes, including development oflow-cost preforms.

Cheaper Materials

Development of high-strength fiber reinforce-ments of significantly lower cost is a major need,as there are no high-performance, low-cost fibersavailable at present. There are two schools ofthought as to the best approach to reducing costs.Some analysts believe that the range of useful-ness can be expanded by the development ofnew fibers with better all-purpose design prop-erties, such as higher strength, higher tempera-ture, and lower cost; they also see new matrixalloys as important to facilitate processing and tooptimize MMC performance. However, somecritics charge that this search for all-purpose fibersand better matrices is likely to be unrewardingand that increased production experience withpresent fibers and matrices is the best route tolower costs, particularly for potential near-termapplicat ions.

Interphase

Control over the fiber/matrix interphase inMMCs is critical to both the cost and perform-ance of these materials. For example, new fibercoatings are needed to permit a single fiber tobe used with a variety of matrices. This wouldbe cheaper than developing a new fiber for eachmatrix.

At high temperatures, fiber/matrix interactionscan seriously degrade MMC strength. Researchin the area of coatings is desirable, not only toprevent these deleterious reactions but also topromote the proper degree of wetting to form agood fiber/matrix bond. Coatings add to the ma-terial and processing costs of MMCs, so that re-search into cheaper coatings and processes is es-sential.

Important


It is critical to understand how reinforcementsand matrices interact, particularly at high tem-peratures, both during fabrication and in service.A thorough understanding of material behavioris necessary to ensure reliable use and to provideguidelines for development of materials with im-proved properties. To date, study of the behaviorof MMCs in deleterious environments has beenmuch more limited than for PMCs. Research isneeded in the areas of stress/temperature/defor-mation relations, strength, mechanical and ther-mal fatigue, impact, fracture, creep rupture, andwear.

Fracture

The subject of fracture behavior in MMCsdeserves special attention. The applicability oftraditional analytical techniques is controversialbecause MMCs are strongly heterogeneous ma-terials. It seems reasonable that these traditionaltechniques should be valid at least for particulate-reinforced MMCs, because they do not appearto have the complex internal failure modes asso-ciated with fiber-reinforced MMCs. In view of thelack of agreement on how to characterize frac-ture behavior of MMCs, though, it will be nec-essary to rely on empirical methods until a clearerpicture emerges.


Reliable NDE techniques must be developedfor MMCs. They should include techniques fordetecting flaws and analytical methods to evalu-ate the significance of these flaws. In MMCs asin PMCs, there is the possibility of many kindsof flaws, including delamination, fiber misalign-ment, and fracture. There are no N DE procedurespresently available for measuring the extent ofundesirable reinforcement/matrix interaction andresultant property degradation.

Machining

The machining of MMCs is currently a very ex-pensive process that requires diamond tools be-

.-


cause of the materials’ very hard and abrasive ce-ramic reinforcements. As machining is a majorcost factor, development of improved methodstailored to the unique properties of MMCs wouldhelp to make these materials more competitive.

Desirable

Modeling

fabricating MMCs. What are needed are designmethods that take into account plasticity effectsand provide for development of efficient, selec-tively reinforced structures and mechanical com-ponents. Research on modeling of processing be-havior is necessary, together with the eventualdevelopment of databases of properties and proc-ess parameters.

Analytical modeling methods would be of valuein helping to develop and optimize processes for

Chapter 5

Factors Affecting the Useof Advanced Materials

C O N T E N T S

PageFinding s....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................121Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....122Integrated Design . . . .

● ****** ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . * . * . . . * . . . . * . . . 122Systems Approach to Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........123Education and Training. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . ., . ...,..., ..,,...124Multidisciplinary Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........125Standards ....,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................126

Standard Test Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........126U.S.Standardization Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....................,..127lnternational Standardization Efforts. . . . . . . . . . . . .................,.....127

Automation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● * . , , , , . . , , ... . . . . . . . . ....,,. ● 128, Computer-Aided Design Systems ....; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. ... ... .,.128Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...,128Computerized Processing Equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128Robotics and Material Handling. . . . . . . . . ..................,.........129Sensors and Process Monitoring Equipment . ....................,......129Statistical Process Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... ..129Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . .131Expert Systems . . . . .. .,. ....... ● . . . . ., * .,*.*.... . .............131

Considerations for . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,,..,..,..131Advanced Structural Material Design..... .,.... . . . . . . . . . .

● *.*,** . . . . . 132Advanced Structural Materials Production . ............................132

Tables.Table No. Page

5-1. Polymer Matrix Composite Design Parameters... . . . ................,.1225-2, Hypothetical Multidisciplinary Design Team for a Ceramic Component ...125S-3. Reasons for Automating, and Appropriate Types of Automation . .....,..133

—

Chapter 5

Factors Affecting the Use ofAdvanced Materials

FINDINGS

Because of the intimate relationship betweenadvanced materials and structures produced fromthem, the design and manufacture of these newmaterials must be treated as an integrated proc-ess. These materials make it possible to form partsand systems in larger, more combined operationsthan are possible with traditional metals technol-ogy. one operation can form both the part andthe material, thereby eliminating costly assem-bly operations. The need for such an integrated,or unified, approach will affect all aspects of man-ufacturing.

costs

Although the high per-pound cost is currentlya barrier to the increased use of advanced struc-tural materials, low cost could become a sellingpoint for these materials in the future if systemscosts are considered. Advanced structural mate-rials offer the opportunity to consolidate parts andreduce manufacturing and assembly costs. Ingeneral, use of advanced materials will only becost-effective if the manufacturer can offset higherraw materials costs with savings in assembly andmaintenance costs.

Multidisciplinary Approach

The integrated nature of advanced materialsmanufacturing will require close cooperation be-tween research scientists, designers and produc-tion engineers. Effective commercialization willrequire teams that bring together expertise frommany professional disciplines.

Education and Training

Cooperation and blending across different dis-ciplines in industry will require interdepartmen-tal educational opportunities for students in uni-versities. At the same time there is a need for

skilled engineers who have strong backgroundsin these advanced materials. Retraining will berequired for engineers already in the work force,and training in manufacturing with these mate-rials will be needed for production workers.

Standards

Several types of standards will facilitate inte-grated design with advanced materials: qualitycontrol standards applied at each stage of themanufacturing process, product specificationstandards, and standardized test methods for ma-terials qualification. Numerous groups in theUnited States are working on domestic materi-als standards, although progress has been slow.There is also a large domestic effort on the partof the Japanese. Several international organiza-tions are also attempting to develop internationalstandards for advanced materials.

Automation

Those forms of automation that aid the integra-tion of design and manufacturing will be of greatuse in speeding up the acceptance of the newmaterials. These might include design databases,automated processing equipment and sensors forprocess information feedback. Automation canhelp reduce material and process cost, ensurepart quality, and eliminate the long manufactur-ing times inherent in some processes.

Technical challenges for the automation of ad-vanced materials production are generally simi-lar to those for traditional metals production;however, such problems as the lack of designdata and strict quality control requirements maybe more serious for advanced composite or ce-ramic part production. Automation will proceedslowly, given the newness of the materials andthe time needed to develop experience with, andconfidence in, their use.

121


INTRODUCTION

The future of advanced materials involves morethan purely technical changes. Other factors thatwill affect the development and commercializa-tion of these materials are: an integrated approachto design and manufacturing, a systems approachto cost, interdisciplinary research and production,education and training, standards development,and automation of design and manufacturingprocesses.

Because advanced ceramics and compositesare tailored to suit their applications, these ma-terials cannot be considered apart from the struc-tures made from them. Both material and struc-ture are manufactured together in an integratedfabrication process. This is fundamentally differ-

ent from the sequential manufacturing processesassociated with conventional materials. With me-tals, the materials and processes are determinedby the specifications; with advanced materials,the materials and manufacturing processes aredesigned with the aid of the specifications.

The principle of integration will have a stronginfluence on the future use of advanced materi-als. This development will depend on more uni-fied approaches to problem solving, requiring abroader view on a wide range of issues. An in-tegrated approach will be imperative, not just infinding solutions to technical challenges, but alsoin dealing with various institutional and economicissues.

INTEGRATED DESIGN

When designing a structure to be made of metal,the design team specifies the metal to be usedand has a rough idea of its final properties. Thisteam then can simply hand the design over tothe production team. The production team, inseparate operations and without further contactwith the designers, treats the metal to achieve themicrostructure and mechanical properties thatthe designers envisioned, shapes the structure ina rough fashion, and finishes it to have the pre-cise shape desired.

With advanced composites and ceramics, thesesteps are collapsed into a single processing step;thus a design team working with these materialscannot be separated from the manufacturers ofthe part. Design of the material, structure, andmanufacturing process is called integrated design.

Integrated design requires a large amount ofdata. Some of the kinds of materials property in-formation a designer might want are shown intable 5-1. Mechanical properties of ceramic andcomposite structures, as well as of the constitu-ent materials, will be needed for a wide varietyof materials. Processing parameter data and costdata will also be important in material and proc-ess choice.

Table 5-1.—Polymer Matrix CompositeDesign Parameters

3.4.5.6.7.8.

9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.

Tensile strength x,yTensile stiffnesses x,yElongation at break x,yFlexural strengthFlexural stiffnessesCompressive strength x,yCompressive stiffnesses x,yShear strength (short beam shear test and/or off-axis tensile test)Shear stiffnesses x,yInterlaminar strength (Gc)Impact strengthCompression strength after impactCoefficient of thermal expansion x,yHydroscopic expansion (moisture coefficient x,y)Poisson’s ratios x,yFiber volume contentVoid contentDensity

x,y: In two directions, parallel and perpendicular to the long direction of the rein-forcement fiber.

NOTE: These design parameters are a few of the large number of designparameters which give rise to the plethora of variables which must be con-trolled during manufacturing.

SOURCE: Materials Modeling Associates, “Properties, Costs, and Applicationsof Polymeric Composites,” contractor report for OTA, December 1985.

There is currently a great deal of effort under-way by many different groups to determine whatmight comprise a materials design database forPMCs. (Ceramic and metal matrix composite

Ch. 5—Factors Affecting the Use of Advanced Materials s 123

[MMC] technologies are less evolved and may notbe ready at this time for database development.)Ideally this data should be available for a widerange of fibers and matrices. A comparison of thecosts of different materials would also be a desira-ble feature of such a materials database.

To direct the manufacture of a part, or to beable to design a part with forethought on howit could be manufactured, processing variablesdatabases would also be necessary. These data-bases would include variables such as curingtimes of resins and heat treatment curves for ob-taining various microstructure, and, most nota-bly, processing costs. A processing databasewould be of greatest benefit in deriving proper-ties of a composite or ceramic structure as awhole. Having this knowledge could allow cus-tom tailoring of parts, and may trim costs through

reducing tendencies to overdesign and throughshortening design time.

Several attempts are being made to establishdatabases for advanced materials. The NationalBureau of Standards is currently attempting to de-velop a protocol for an electronic database forceramic materials. In the private sector, one ef-fort underway to create a centralized databaseis the National Materials Properties Data Net-work, which plans to provide its subscribers withthe capability to search electronically a largenumber of data sources that have been evaluatedby experts.1

I Materials and Processing Report, Renee Ford, Ed., MIT Press,

Cambr idge, MA, February , 1987.

SYSTEMS APPROACH TO COSTS

It is often stated that the three biggest barriersto the increased use of advanced materials arecost, cost, and cost. In a narrow sense, this ob-servation is correct. If advanced materials are con-sidered on a dollar-per-pound basis as replacementsfor steel or aluminum in existing designs, theycannot compete. This has often been the percep-tion of potential user industries, which tend tobe oriented toward metals processing. However,per-pound costs and part-for-part replacementcosts are rarely valid bases for comparison be-tween conventional and advanced materials.

A more fruitful approach is to analyze the over-all systems costs of a shift from conventional ma-terials to advanced materials, including integrateddesign, fabrication, installation, and Iifecyclecosts. 2 On a systems cost basis, the advanced ma-terials can compete economically in a broadrange of applications. Moreover, the high per-pound cost is largely a result of the immaturityof the available fabrication technologies and thelow production volumes. Large decreases in ma-terials costs can be expected as the technologies

2 “How Should Management Assess Today’s Advanced Manufac-turing Options, ” Industry Week, May 26, 1986, pp. 45-88.

mature. For instance, the cost of a pound ofstandard high-strength carbon fiber used to be$300 but is now less than $20, and new processesbased on synthesis from petroleum pitch prom-ise to reduce the cost even furthers If high-strength carbon fibers costing only $3 to $5 perpound were to become available, major new op-portunities would open up for composites in au-tomotive, construction, and corrosion-resistantapplications.

Advanced ceramics and composites shouldreally be considered structures rather than ma-terials. Viewed in this light, the importance of adesign process capable of producing highly in-tegrated and multifunctional structures becomesclear. Polymer matrix composites (PMCs) providea good example. In fact, the greatest potentialeconomic advantage of using such materials, be-yond their superior performance, is the reduc-tion in the manufacturing cost achieved by reduc-ing the number of parts and operations requiredin fabrication. For example, a typical automobilebody has about 250 to 350 structural parts. Usingan integrated composite design, this total could

3/rOn Age, June 20, 1986, P. J6


be reduced to between 2 and 10 parts, with ma-jor savings in tooling and manufacturing costs.4

Fuel Costs

Fuel costs also represent an important factorthat can affect the competitiveness of advancedceramics and composites compared with conven-tional structural materials. The cost of the energyrequired to manufacture ceramic and compos-ite components is only a negligible fraction ofoverall production costs. However, the high po-tential for energy savings when the componentis in service is a major reason for using advancedceramics and composites. 5

penetration of ceramics into such applicationsas heat exchangers, industrial furnaces, industrialcogeneration, fluidized bed combusters, and gasturbine engines depends on energy costs. Ce-ramic heat exchanger systems have potential forgreater than 60 percent fuel savings.6 Ceramicsused in advanced turbines could result in 30 to60 percent fuel savings.7

Weight reduction, through intensive use ofPMCs in automobiles, may be translated intoimproved fuel economy and performance, andthereby lower vehicle operating cost. The trendtoward fuel-efficient automobiles after the oil cri-sis of 1973-74 resulted in a substantial decreasein the average weight of an automobile, some 25

4P. Beardmore et al., Ford Motor Co., “Impact of New Materialson Basic Manufacturing Industries—Case Study: Composite Automo-bile Structure, ” contractor report for OTA, March 1987.

5 David W. Richerson, “Design, Processing, Development andManufacturing Requirements of Ceramics and Ceramic Matrix Com-posites,” contractor report for OTA, December 1985.

6 S.M. Johnson and D.J. Rowcliffe, SRI International Report to EPRI.“Ceramics for Electric Power-Generating System s,” January 1986

7Richerson, op. cit., December 1985.

percent of it due to the introduction of lightweightmaterials such as high-strength steel, plastics, andaluminum. 8 Increases in fuel prices would en-courage some further interest in advanced com-posites for automotive applications. (For furtherdiscussion of the impact of energy costs on useof composites in automobiles, see chs. 6 and 7.)

In aircraft, one of the major benefits of usingPMCs is lower Iifecycle costs derived from bet-ter fuel efficiency, lower maintenance costs andlonger service life. This has already been dem-onstrated by the fact that there was a significantincrease in the use of PMCs in aircraft when oilprices were greater than $30 per barrel.9 It is alsoevident however, that Iifecycle costs and capi-tal, materials, and labor costs (notably the highlabor costs of hand lay-up) are design trade-offswhich determine the choice of materials. Whenoil prices drop as low as $12 per barrel (as theydid in the fall of 1986), the relatively high costof composite materials makes them unattractiveto the aircraft manufacturer.10

There are predictions that low oil prices willcontinue through the year 2000, and that jet fuelprices will not even increase as quickly as crudeoil prices.11 This does not necessarily mean thatgains made in use of composites in aircraft willbe reversed. Rather, the persistent low energycosts are likely to reduce the incentives to in-crease the use of composites in structures nowmade of aluminum.

‘Steven R. Izatt, “Impacts of New Structural Materials on BasicMetals Industries,” contractor report for OTA, April 1987.

9A.S. Brown, “Pace of Structural Materials Slows for Commer-cial Transports, ” Aerospace America, American Institute of Aer-onautics and Astronautics, June 1987, pp. 18-21, 28.

10 Ibid.11 p.D. HOltberg, T.J. Woods, and A. B. Ash by, “Baseline projec-

tion Data Book, ” Gas Research Institute, Washington, DC, 1986.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

The expanding opportunities for advanced ce- or composite materials. There is also a shortageramics and composites will require more scien- of properly trained faculty members to teach thetists and engineers with broad backgrounds in courses. However, considerable progress is be-these fields. At present, only a few U.S. univer- ing made in the number of students graduatingsities offer comprehensive curricula in ceramic with degrees in advanced materials fields. In the

Ch. 5—Factors Affecting the Use of Advanced Materials . 125

1984-85 academic year, a total of 77 M.S. degrees,and 34 Ph.D.s were awarded in ceramics in theUnited States. One year later the totals were 139and 78, respectively. About 40 percent of thePh.D.s were foreign students. No estimates wereavailable on how many of the foreign studentssubsequently returned to their home countries.12

The job market for graduates with advanceddegrees in ceramic or composite engineering isgood, and can be expected to expand in the fu-ture. Stronger relationships between industry anduniversity laboratories are now providing greatereducational and job opportunities for students,and this trend is expected to continue.

There is a great need for continuing educationand training opportunities in industry for designersand engineers who are unfamiliar with the newmaterials. In the field of PMCs, for instance, mostof the design expertise is concentrated in the

lzBusiness Communications Co., InC., “Strategies of AdvancedMaterials Suppliers and Users, ” contractor report for OTA, Jan. 28,1987.

aerospace industry. Continuing education is espe-cially important in relatively low-technology in-dustries such as construction, which purchase,rather than produce, the materials they use. Someuniversities and professional societies are nowoffering seminars and short courses to fill this gap;such educational resources should be publicizedand made more widely available,

Beyond the training of professionals, there isa need for the creation of awareness of advancedmaterials technologies among technical editors,managers, planners, corporate executives, tech-nical media personnel and the general public. Inrecent years, there has been a marked increasein the number of newspaper and magazine arti-cles about the remarkable properties of advancedceramics and composites, as well as in the num-ber of technical journals associated with thesematerials. The success of composite sports equip-ment, including skis and tennis rackets, showsthat new materials can have a high-tech appealto the public, even if they are relatively expensive.

MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH

Commercialization of advanced materials re-quires a team effort. In producing a typical ce-ramic component, the team could consist of oneor more professionals from each of several techni-cal disciplines, as illustrated in table 5-2. Disciplinesthat overlap materials science and engineeringare: solid state physics; chemistry; mechanical,electrical, and industrial engineering; civil andbiomedical engineering; mathematics; and aero-space, automotive, and chemical engineering.Materials research lends itself naturally to col-laborative institutional arrangements in which therigid disciplinary boundaries between differentfields are relaxed.

Similarly, interjector cooperation in materialsresearch could speed the development of advancedmaterials. New mechanisms for collaborativework among university, industry, and governmentlaboratory scientists and engineers are having asalutary effect on the pace of advanced materi-

Table 5.2.—Hypothetical Multidisciplinary DesignTeam for a Ceramic Component

Specialist Contribution

Systems engineer . . . . . . . . Defines performanceDesigner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Develops structural conceptsStress analyst . . . . . . . . . . . Determines stress for local

environments and difficultshapes

Metallurgist . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlates design with metallicproperties and environments

Ceramist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Identifies proper composition,reactions, and behavior fordesign

Characterization analyst. . . Utilizes electron microscopy,X-ray, fracture analysis, etc.to characterize material

Ceramic manufacturer . . . . Defines production feasibilitySOURCE: J.J. Mecholsky, “Engineering Research Needs of Advanced Ceramics

and Ceramic Matrix Composites, ” contractor report for OTA, Decem-ber 1985.

als development and utilization’, (The role of gov-ernment/university/industry collaborative R&D isexplored in greater detail in ch. 10.)


STANDARDS

There are many problems inherent in settingstandards in rapidly moving technologies.13

Standards development is a consensus processthat can take years to complete, and it is likelyto be all the slower in this case because of thecomplex and unfamiliar behavior of advanced ce-ramics and composites. As these technologiesmature, though, such difficulties will generally be-come more tractable.

The extensive data requirements of integrateddesign can be simplified by material standards toreduce the volumes of data that are processed,and by data transfer standards to permit the effi-cient handling of data. Standards are essential forthe generation of design data, and for reliabilityspecifications for advanced materials sold domes-tically or abroad. Areas that could benefit fromthe formulation and application of standards in-clude: quality control, product specifications,and, most importantly, materials testing.

The two keys to competitiveness in any areaof manufacturing are quality assurance at lowcost. Quality control standards applied at eachstage of the manufacturing process help to en-sure high product quality and low rejection rates.For instance, there is a need for standards appliedto ceramic powders and green bodies (unsinteredceramic shapes) to minimize the flaws in the fi-nal sintered product. Product specification stand-ards, largely determined by the requirements ofthe buyer, provide the buyer with assurance thatthe product will meet his needs.

As a way to accelerate the commercializationof advanced materials, some experts advocatechoosing one or two materials in a given cate-gory and concentrating on producing uniform,high-quality components from these. In ceram-ics, for instance, silicon carbide, silicon nitride,and zirconia would be possible candidates, be-cause they have already received a large amountof research funding over the years for heat en-

13 J. David Roessner, “Technology Policy in the United States:Structures and Limitations,” Technovation, vol. 5, 1987, p. 237,provides a brief case study of problems in setting standards in theearly stages of development of numerically controlled machinetools.

gine applications. These materials have a broadrange of potential uses, but designers cannotcompare them or use them without a reliabledatabase on standard compositions having speci-fied properties. While there is a danger in prema-turely narrowing the possibilities, these expertssay, there is also a danger in not developing thematerials already available. Opponents of thisview argue that, since large commercial marketsare still far in the future, there is no need to set-tle for present materials and processes. On thecontrary, they say, the focus should be on newmaterials and processes which can “leapfrog” thepresent state-of-the-art. This classic dilemma ischaracteristic of any rapidly evolving technology.

Standard Test Methods

The need for standard test methods has longbeen identified as an important priority. Forhomogeneous materials such as metals, testingmethods are fairly straightforward. In composites,however, the macroscopic mechanical behavioris a complex summation of the behavior of themicroconstituents. Consequently, there has beengreat difficulty in achieving a consensus on whatproperties are actually being measured in a giventest, let alone what test is most appropriate fora given property. Currently there are numeroustest methods and private databases in use through-out the industry. This has resulted in consider-able property variability in papers and reports.The variability problem is particularly severe fortesting of toughness, bending, shear, and com-pression properties.

Standardized test methods would not only fa-cilitate consistent reporting of materials proper-ties in the research literature, but they could alsodrastically reduce the costs of the repetitive test-ing presently necessary to qualify new materialsfor use in various applications.14 Due to liabilityconcerns, a new material must be qualified byextensive testing for an individual application be-fore a user company will incorporate it into asystem.

I qThis is discussed for polymer matrix composites in ch. 11.

Ch. 5—Factors Affecting the Use of Advanced Materials . 127

At present, each defense prime contractor com-pany qualifies its material for each separate de-fense or aerospace application according to itsown individual tests and procedures. Data on ma-terial properties are often developed under gov-ernment contract (costing $100,000 to $10 mil-lion and taking up to 2 years), but companies arereluctant to share the results. Even when data arereported in the literature, often the type of testused and the statistical reliability of the results arenot reported with the data. Although the lack ofstandards probably does not inhibit the expertdesigner of composite aerospace structures, theavailability of standards could encourage the useof composites in industries such as construction,where designers have no familiarity with the ma-terials.

U.S. Standardization Efforts

The American Society for the Testing of Mate-rials (ASTM), provides the United States with anexcellent and internationally respected mecha-nism for setting materials standards. ASTM hasrecently established an Advanced Ceramics Com-mittee (C-28), which is now staffing subcommit-tees in the fields of properties, performance, de-sign and evaluation, characterization, processing,and terminology. The ASTM Committee on HighModulus Fibers and Their Composites (D-30) andthe Committee on Plastics (D-20) are the principalsources of standardized test methods for PMCs.Advanced materials trade associations such as theUnited States Advanced Ceramics Association(USACA) and the Suppliers of Advanced Com-posite Materials Association (SACMA) have alsobeen working with ASTM and government agen-cies to develop standards.

On the users’ side, the Aircraft Industries Asso-ciation has initiated Composite Materials Charac-terization, Inc. (CMC), a consortium of aerospacecompanies involved in fabricating composites.CMC is conducting limited materials screeningtests on composite materials for its members.15

Consistent with its growing interest in compos-ites, the Department of Defense, with the Army

15Advanced Composites, July/August 1987, p. 45

as the lead service, has recently initiated a newprogram for standardization of composites tech-nology (CMPS).16 CMPS is attempting to promotethe integration of diverse standards for compos-ites by gathering standardized test methods (e.g.,from ASTM) into Military Handbook 17(MIL-17)and by developing separate test methods wherenecessary. 17 A Joint Army-Navy-NASA-Air Force(JANNAF) Composite Motor Case Subcommitteeis developing standard test methods for filamentwound composites used for rocket motor cases.18

As part of CMPS, the Army Materials Labora-tory in Watertown, MA, has established coordi-nation with a variety of organizations, includingASTM, the Composites Group of the Society ofManufacturing Engineers (COGSME), the Societyof Automotive Engineers (SAE), the Society for theAdvancement of Material and Process Engineer-ing (SAMPE), American Society for Metals (ASM)International, the Society of Plastics Engineers(SPE), and the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI).

International Standardization Efforts

International organizations that are pursuingadvanced materials standards include the Ver-sailles Project on Advanced Materials and Stand-ards (VAMAS), and the International Energy Agency(IEA). VAMAS is now formally independent, hav-ing begun as an outgrowth of the periodic summitmeetings of the heads of government of Canada,France, the United Kingdom, West Germany,Italy, Japan, the United States, and the EuropeanCommunity. Subdivided into 13 technical work-ing areas, VAMAS is attempting to improve thereproducibility of test results among laboratoriesby round robin testing procedures designed toidentify the most important control variables. U.S.liaison with VAMAS is primarily through the Na-tional Bureau of Standards (NBS).

16u .s. @pa~rnent of Defense, Standardization program plan,

Composites Technology Program Area (CMPS), Mar. 13, 1987.17A draft of Ml L 17 was being evaluated at this Writing.18 U.S. Department of Defense, op. cit., footnote 16.


The IEA is developing standards for character- coordinated through the Department of Energy.izing ceramic powders and materials. The prin- Currently, U.S. participation in these internationalcipal participants are the United States, Sweden, standards-related activities tends to be limited,and West Germany. U.S. liaison with the IEA is with funds being set aside from other budgets.

AUTOMATION

The term automation is used here to encom-pass the wide range of new design and process-ing technologies for advanced materials. Auto-mation of design and early development workinvolves standardized materials and processingdatabases; computer-aided design (CAD) systems;and computerized mathematical/ modeling of de-sign and processing of the material. Automationof production processes can involve any combi-nation of the following technologies: computer-ized processing equipment that can be used ina stand-alone fashion or in coordination withother technologies; robotic, instead of human,handling of material; sensors and process moni-toring equipment; statistical process control forbetter part quality; computer-aided manufacture(CAM) and “expert” systems software for coordi-nation of design and manufacture.

Computer-Aided Design Systems

CAD systems currently focus on three-dimen-sional graphics manipulation, and many of themalso have the capability for stress analysis of astructure. CAD systems for mechanical drawingscurrently cannot recognize parts of a drawing assignificant features; e.g., the collection of linesthat a designer sees as a hole is seen by the CADsystem as simply a collection of Iines.19 20 A com-prehensive CAD system that would facilitate theprocess of choosing suitable materials, reinforce-ment geometry, and method of fabrication is stillfar in the future. Such a system would requireboth materials databases on fiber and resin prop-erties and processing databases that would per-mit modeling of the manufacturing steps neces-sary to fabricate the part. The principal advantageof such a system would be to define clearly the

lgHerb Brody, “CAD Meets CAM, ” High Technology, May 1987,pp. 12-18.

ZOMore sophisticated CAD systems exist for drawing electronic

circuits.

options and trade-offs associated with variousproduction strategies, including processing costs.

Computerized Mathematical Modeling

To expand the capabilities of a CAD system,the designer would need accurate models of howthe material and the part would behave in theoperating environment. Computerized mathe-matical models will be necessary to describe therelationships among materials properties, mate-rial microstructure, environmental conditions,static and dynamic forces, manufacturing varia-bles, and other aspects of design such as lifeprediction and repairability considerations. Math-ematical models may also aid in decreasing theamount of stored data needed. It may also provepossible to develop, during the design of a givencomponent, temporary mathematical models,specific to that component. This wouId facilitatequick redesign of the component during the de-sign or prototype development phases.21

Computerized Processing Equipment

Computer control of all aspects of processingand manufacturing will be an important factor inincreasing and maintaining the reliability andreproducibility of parts made of advanced ma-terials. What is required initially is processingequipment similar to today’s computer numeri-cally controlled (CNC) machine tools for machin-ing metal. Automated processing equipment isbeing designed in-house by some aerospace man-ufacturers and manufacturers of machine tools,

Currently, production equipment (computercontrolled or otherwise), designed specifically foradvanced materials is at a prototype stage. An ex-ample is automated tape-laying machinery for

21 Norman Kuchar, General Electric Co., personal Commu nica-

tion, Apr. 15, 1987.

Ch. 5—Factors Affecting the Use of Advanced Materials “ 129

PMCs. The tape-laying machines now availableare modified milling machines similar to thoseused for metalworking. There is a great deal ofinterest in developing new programmable auto-mated tape-laying equipment, with computer-aided determination of the tape-laying path.22

Another promising technology for automatingPMC production is the filament winding machine.Recent development work in flexible filamentwinding machines indicates that it may be pos-sible to generate complex, noncylindrical parts.23

Other processes for producing composite partsthat are good candidates for computerized proc-essing are: fast pultrusion processes, impregna-tion of prepregs, and three-dimensional fabricsand preforms.

Ceramic processing techniques that could ben-efit from this sort of automation are shaping anddensification methods, machining techniques,and particularly techniques for near-net-shapeprocessing, such as hot isostatic pressing and cast-ing techniques.

Microprocessors can monitor and control cy-cle times and temperatures for such processes ashot isostatic pressing for ceramics and fast-curingspray-up processes for PMCs. Equipment undercomputer control will eventually be used in partfinishing operations and assembly as well as par-tforming.

Robotics and Materials Handling

Robots function as would a human hand andarm in manipuIating parts and materials. Robotscan also be used to hold and operate tools, suchas welding equipment or drills. Processes suchas hand lay-up of composites currently requirea great deal of human handling of material, butit is not necessarily cost-effective to replace a hu-man with a robot directly in advanced materialproduction. Processes such as filament windingand resin transfer molding are more likely to re-place hand lay-up cost-effectively for certain types

22 Roger Seifried, Cincinnati Milacron CO., personal communica-

tion, June 1, 1987.ZIDick McLane, Boeing Airplane Co., personal Communication,

Apr. 29, 1987.

of composites.24 For this reason, applications forrobots in advanced material production are likelyto be limited to the carrying of nondestructiveevaluation sensors (see below) and a small amountof part handling. Robots are currently used forassembly operations such as welding. It may bethat robots will be used in composite joiningoperations, such as the application of adhesives.

Sensors and Process MonitoringEquipment

To monitor advanced materials processing on-line (during the process), sensors are needed. Thisinformation must be sent to the computer andanalyzed, so that errors can be detected and anyneeded corrections can be made while the partis still being formed. This procedure permits near-instant correction of costly mistakes in process-ing. This is accomplished through the use of sen-sors and monitoring equipment that can detectabnormal conditions without interfering with nor-mal processes. Sensors are used not only to de-tect major processing problems but also for thefine-tuning of quality control.

There are many types of sensors: laser andother visual sensors, vibration-sensing monitorsthat can operate in many frequency ranges, forceand power monitors, acoustic and heat-sensingprobes, electrical property probes (e.g., capaci-tance- or inductance-based) and a host of othertypes. There are also many types of sensors thatcan be used for part inspection once a part hasbeen completed; these include such techniquesas nondestructive evaluation (using acoustic andother vibrational methods, radiography, holog-raphy, thermal wave imaging, and magnetic res-onance among other methods) and use of laser-based high-precision dimensional measuring ma-chines.

Statistical Process Control

Quality control, in a general sense, means stay-ing within predetermined tolerances or specifica-tions when manufacturing a batch of parts. Eachbatch of parts has a statistical distribution of part

ZAT’irnOthy Cutowski, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Per-

sonal communicat ion, Apr . 15, 1987.


qualities, all of which must fall within a certaintolerance range. Statistical process control en-compasses quality-control practices that ensurethat the statistical part quality distribution fallswithin the tolerance range, and that this distri-bution is centered within the tolerance range.25

This procedure ensures not only that part qual-ity of all the parts in the batch is acceptable, but

25 Kelth Beauregard, Perception Inc., “Use of Machine Vision TO

Stay Within Statistical Process Control Limits of Dimensions, ” Cut-

ting Tool Materials and Applications Clinic, Detroit, Ml, Society ofManufacturing Engineers, Mar. 11-13, 1986.

also that the large majority of the parts in thebatch are of the most desirable quality.

Statistical process control is mainly mathemati-cal in nature and relies heavily on the sensor tech-nologies described above for information inputs.To apply the information gained from statisticalprocess control techniques most effectively, feed-back into the manufacturing system must occurduring the process of forming the batch. The in-formation fed back into the process is used tomake the minor processing corrections that cansignificantly increase the reliability of the proc-ess, enhance the overall quality of each batch,and reduce the rejection rates of the final parts.

Ch. 5—Factors Affecting the Use of Advanced Materials ● 131

Computer-Aided Designand Manufacturing

CAD/CAM technology lies further in the futurethan most of the automation technologies de-scribed here. The CAD systems described abovecould help the designer choose a material andpick the least costly, most sensible process formanufacturing, as well as model the behavior ofthe part in service. A fully integrated CAD/CAMsystem would then send instructions to the cor-rect set of machines to process the material. ItwouId also need to include instructions for proc-ess variables, raw materials inventory, manufac-ture or supply of tooling, production time sched-uling, and other shop-floor considerations.

Expert Systems

Expert systems technology, like the CAD/CAMtechnology, lies far in the future. An expert sys-

tem is essentially a type of artificial intelligenceand requires an extremely complex program thatcan make educated guesses when confrontedwith a lack of hard knowledge. Such a system isan assemblage of interactive software plus data-bases that offer all of the working knowledgegleaned by experts in a particular field. A designerinexperienced with composites or ceramics mightbe able to use the system to learn how to designwith the unfamiliar material. The benefits of anexpert system for materials design are clear. Thesematerials could become more accessible with theadvent of such an expert system, and all design-ers, whatever their level of experience, wouldhave an enhanced base on which to draw.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING AUTOMATION

Full automation implies an integration of allfacets of design, development, materials inven-tory, production, quality assurance, product in-ventory, and marketing. Clearly such a degreeof automation is far in the future for advancedmaterials and will only occur when the dollarvolume of advanced materials products is highenough to warrant the significant capital invest-ment needed for this type of production. Al-though this degree of technical complexity is notyet available, all of these technologies are in-dividually of continuing interest to advanced ma-terials manufacturers.

It is important to note that this type of com-plete automation need not occur at once. in fact,for reasons of capital cost alone, it is wise not toimplement a high degree of automation quickly.Fortunately, some of these technologies can beverified and put in place well before others areavailable. It is necessary for each industry or com-pany to decide what benefits of automation aremost important and to choose to incorporate

those forms of automation that could fill theneeds of that company in a timely and cost-effective fashion.

Many industry experts feel that technologiessuch as advanced ceramics and composites aretoo new to warrant a large investment in auto-mation. Automation is seen as an inflexible proc-ess requiring fixed, well-characterized process-ing techniques. In the view of these experts, itwill be many years before enough experience hasbeen gained with these materials to considerautomation cost-effective. It will be useful to con-sider here what automation technologies offer forcomposites and ceramics manufacture and whatchallenges face the automation of advanced ma-terial production.

Automation offers three advantages: speed,reliability/reproducibility, and cost, However,these benefits cannot be realized simultaneously;trade-offs are required. A system that offers so-phisticated controls and sensors for producingparts to tight specifications may not be a system


that has enough speed (or low enough costs) touse in high-volume applications. The capital in-vestment required may not be low enough tomake advanced materials attractive enough touse even in high-volume applications. Anothertrade-off is between flexibility and speed/cost.Robots or materials processing equipment thatcan perform a wide range of tasks will not be asinexpensive and operationally quick as equip-ment dedicated to one particular task.

Currently, there are several major roadblocksto automation in the advanced materials field.One is the inability to link machine tools, con-trollers, and robots made by different manufac-turers, or even by the same manufacturer at dif-ferent points in time. This problem of interfacingnonstandard and dissimilar machines has beenunder consideration by a number of organiza-tions, most notably the Automated Manufactur-ing Research Facility (AMRF)26 at the National Bu-reau of Standards (NBS) and the ManufacturingAutomation Protocol (MAP)27 system developedby General Motors. Some advanced materials ad-vocates have cited data transfer standards assome of the most important standards needed forincreased use of advanced materials.

Another difficulty in automation is the wealthof information needed in electronic form whichpresents difficulties in data collection and in-creased probability of errors during data access.To illustrate the formidable problems facing thedevelopment of electronic databases of ceramicand composite properties, consider the state ofmetal machining databases. There are currentlythousands of metals and metal alloys, and thou-sands of types of microstructure that can occurin each metal or alloy. Machining conditions canchange with: microstructure of the metal; thetype of machining process; the type, size andcondition of tool; the depth, length, width, andspeeds of cut; and the type and amount of lubri-cant. Each of these parameters must be selectedfor each operation that must be performed ona metal part.

zG’’Automated Manufacturing Research Facility,” National Bureauof Standards, December 1986.

Zzcatherine A. Behringer, “Steering a Course With MAP,” Man-ufacturing Engineering, September 1986, pp. 49-53.

In addition, unexpected machining behaviormay occur depending on factors that cannot beknown in advance, such as the rigidity, age, andbrand of machine tool used. Thus, individual cor-rections must be made after the original param-eters are chosen and tested.

There are similarly a large number of variablesfor the design of a metal part. At present, mostof the country’s design and production engineersworking with metals use handbooks of incom-plete tables to make best guesses as to design andprocess parameters. These data have been de-rived experimentally in an uncoordinated fash-ion over a period of decades. The situation forcomposites databases is even more complicatedbecause of the larger number of component ma-terials and materials interactions that must betaken into account.

Advanced Structural Materials Design

Most of the problems described above arepresent whether the material is metal, ceramic,or a composite. However automation is a muchmore problematic undertaking with advanced ce-ramics or composites than with metals. One ma-jor problem is the complexity of design.

At this stage, design databases, both for mate-rials properties and the processes used in manu-facturing parts, are still incomplete for availableand familiar metals that have been in use for somedecades. With newer materials this is even moreof a problem because there is little material ex-perience or history available from any source.Some experts believe that the use of mathemati-cal modeling of manufacturing processes willeventually allow the designer to construct a part-specific database as a new part is being designed.This preliminary database could be updated asthe design moved to the prototype and produc-tion phases and more knowledge of the mate-rial is gained.

One esoteric problem in automating designprocesses involves engineering knowledge of anintuitive or experiential nature. This humanknowledge is difficult to translate into informa-tion that can be transferred or used electronically.Examples: The ability to tell the temperature ofa molten metal by its color, or to ascertain the

Ch. 5—Factors Affecting the Use of Advanced Materials ● 133

service life left to a cutting tool by the sound itmakes during the cut. To translate this kind ofknow-how into electronic data, extremely ac-curate, sensitive, durable, and reliable sensors arerequired. This is particularly important consider-ing the flaw sensitivity of such a material as a ce-ramic, because a large number of parts can beruined for a slight margin of error in the sensor.These materials cannot be reworked, and highscrap rates are a major factor contributing to thehigh cost of ceramic parts.

Advanced Structural MaterialsProduction

Several problems are likely to hamper the de-velopment of automated techniques for produc-tion of advanced materials that do not arise inthe production of parts made from metal. Al-though new structural materials offer the advan-tage of combining what would be several metalparts into a single structure, when an error oc-curs in production, cost-efficiency may be seri-ously threatened. Advanced materials cost more,the structure cannot be reworked, and the wholecomposite or ceramic structure is lost where onlya single metal part might have been with a metaldesign. This is another reason why automatedproduction of these advanced materials will re-quire extremely reliable and accurate sensors.

Another problem is the large capital investmentinvolved in automation. Full automation of de-sign through production requires many new and

expensive changes at once. Even though one ofthe main advantages of these new engineeredmaterials is the integration of design and manu-facturing, it will not be possible to develop allthese technologies at once into a single, unifiedfactory system.

As companies begin to automate, they will usedifferent combinations of automation technol-ogies, depending on the priorities of the user in-dustry. Table 5-3 illustrates how the reasons forautomating might differ among manufacturers.In the near term, automation based on the useof robotics to reduce labor costs may not be cost-effective if labor costs are a small pat-t of overallcost, or if part volumes are Iow.28 The automo-bile industry would desire to automate to savematerials and manufacturing process costs.

In the aircraft industry, techniques such as auto-mated tape laying to save the labor costs of handlay-up could be important. Where long designtimes mean a significant cost, such as in aircraftdesign, automation is desirable in the form ofmathematical modeling, expert systems for de-signers, and systems for prototype production,such as mold design software. 29 Since the relia-bility and reproducibility of ceramic parts are ofprimary importance, automated processing tech-

28S. Krolewski and T. Gutowski, “Effect of the Automation of Ad-vanced Composite Fabrication Process on Part Cost, ” SAA4PE Quar-tedy, October 1986.

zgNorman Kuchar, General Electric Co., personal Communica-

tion, Apr. 15, 1987.

Table 5-3.—Reasons for Automating, and Appropriate Types of Automation

Reason Types of automation Industry example

Save labor costs: Robotics Automotive paint spraying,New processing technologies (i.e., filament joining

winding, tape laying)

Speed up production: New processing technologies: Auto bodyHigh-speed resin transfer molding,automated tape laying

Increase part quality: Process controls, sensor technologies Ceramic auto engine partsComposite aircraft structures

Shorten design times: Expert sytems Composite aircraft structuresCADMathematical modelingDatabases

NOTE: Different manufacturing challenges require different types of automation solutions.



niques and sensor technology would be used toautomate the manufacture of ceramics. The plas-tics industry is turning to robots for several rea-sons, among them the ability to integrate plasticpart manufacturing with “downstream” assem-bly operations, and flexibility to meet changingproduction requirements.30

The one form of automation nearly all indus-tries require immediately involves better materi-als processing technologies possessing some de-gree of automation. This means an increase in

30 Robert V. Wilder, “Processors Take a Second, Harder Look at

Robots, ” Modern Plastics, August 1987, p. 48.

the quality of sensors and a higher level of so-phistication in equipment for forming advancedmaterials. As we have seen and will see again inthe following chapters, processes such as auto-mated tape laying of PMCs and near-net-shapeprocesses for ceramics will need precision form-ing and monitoring equipment to begin to offerthe needed reliability and cost savings.

Automation techniques that foster integrateddesign through promoting close cooperation be-tween designer and manufacturing engineer shouldbe of highest priority. These would include ex-tensive design databases, automated processingequipment and sensors for process informationfeedback.

Chapter 6

Impacts of MaterialsSubstitution on the Basic

Metals Industries

Findings . . . . . . . . . . .Introduction. . . . . . . .Historical Supply and

supply. . . . . . . . . . .Demand . . . . . . . . .Interrelationships of

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .Demand. . . . . . ,.. . . . . . .*

CONTENTSPage

● *,.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137Factors for Steel and Aluminum . ............138.**.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138● ...*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Factors Affecting Supply and Demand . ..............139The Relative Importance ofthe End Uses of Steel and Aluminum . ....,......139Potential for Substitution in the Aircraft industry. . ........................141Potential for Substitution in the Automobile Industry + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....144Potential for Substitution in the Construction Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147

High-Strength Concrete as a Substitute for Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..147PMCs and Unreinforced Plastics as substitutes for Steel and Aluminum .. ...148

Potential for Substitution in the Container Industry. ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .148Development of New Industries and Changes in Existing Industries . . . . . . . . . . 150

PMCs and Unreinforced Plastics industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . ......150Adhesives and Coating Industries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............151Weaving industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........151Recycling Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................151

FiguresFigure No. Page

6-1. Relationship Between Property Improvement and Weight Savings forVarious Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......143

6-2. Projected Savings in Aircraft Structural Weight Based on SelectedAdvanced Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............143

6-3. Breakdown of Structural Materials Use in Two Alternative Designs ofCommercial Transport Aircraft . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........143

Tables .Table No. Page

6-1.6-2.6-3.64.

6-5.6-6.

U.S. Personal Consumption Expenditures for 1978 and 1983............139Industries Using the Largest Amount of Steel, 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..140Industries Using the Largest Amount of Aluminum, 1977...............140Current and Proposed Use of Advanced Materials in AerospaceStructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............142Current and Proposed Use of Advanced Materials in Automobiles . ......145Cost Comparison79-Story Building

of Using Normal and High-Strength Concrete for a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147. . . . . . . .

Chapter 6

Impacts of Materials Substitutionon the Basic Metals Industries

FINDINGS

The U.S. steel and aluminum industries are cur-rently undergoing a substantial restructuring proc-ess caused by large increases in world supply anddecreases in per capita demand. Overall, mate-rials substitution has been only a minor factoraffecting the demand for these metals in the pastdecade. However, the importance of substitutionby alternative materials is likely to be significantlygreater in the next 10 to 20 years.

The materials likely to have the greatest impacton the aluminum and steel industries are unrein-forced plastics, polymer matrix composites (PMCs),metal matrix composites (MMCs), and high-strengthconcrete. Ceramics and ceramic matrix compos-ites (CMCs) are not expected to have a signifi-cant impact on steel or aluminum use in the next20 years.

The threat of substitution has stimulated im-provements in metals technology, e.g., high-

strength, low-alloy (HSLA) steels, aluminum-lith-ium alloys (A1-Li), and rapidly solidified metal al-loys. This makes the pace of substitution difficultto predict.

An analysis of the end uses of these metals in-dicates that substitution is likely to be most im-portant in four markets: aircraft, automobiles, con-struction, and containers. However, OTA findsthat by far the greatest volume of metals will bedisplaced by relatively low-performance materi-als, such as unreinforced plastics, sheet-moldingcompounds, and high-strength concrete, ratherthan by so-called advanced materials.

As new materials are increasingly adopted, avariety of secondary industries, such as adhesives,coatings, and weaving industries can be expectedto grow. The recyclability of the new materialscould become a major factor affecting their use.

INTRODUCTIONWith the development of new materials such This chapter outlines the effects of materials sub-

as structural plastics and composites, engineers stitution on the U.S. aluminum and steel indus-now have many more options available for de- tries.1 An analysis of the major markets for thesesigning products. These new materials can offer two metals suggests that the most significant pos-performance advantages over such traditional ma- sibilities for substitution will be in aircraft, automo-terials as aluminum, steel, and concrete. How will biles, construction, and containers. In the follow-these new materials affect the traditional manu- ing section, materials substitution is consideredfacturing industries? What new industries will de- in the context of the many factors affecting sup-velop to support the use of these materials? The ply and demand within the basic metals industries.answers to these questions are important to anunderstanding of the factors that will influence ‘This chapter draws heavily on “Impacts of New Structural Ma-

the evolution of U.S. manufacturing industries interials on Basic Metals Industries, ” by Steven R. lzatt, a contractorreport prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, April

the 1990s and beyond. 1987.

137


HISTORICAL SUPPLY AND DEMAND FACTORSFOR STEEL AND ALUMINUM

supply

The supply of steel and aluminum worldwidehas grown substantially in recent years. Major fac-tors that have affected the supply of steel and alu-minum in the United States are: the present U.S.overcapacity for steel and aluminum; the world-wide overcapacity for steel and aluminum; gov-ernment ownership of foreign production facil-ities; volatile and depressed prices for steel andaluminum; imports of steel and aluminum, thegrowth of steel mini-mills in the United States;restructuring of the steel and aluminum indus-tries; domestic scrap recovery of aluminum; anda shift to fabricated shapes in aluminum.

●

●

●

●

●

●

Overcapacity: The main factor affecting thesupply of steel and aluminum in the UnitedStates is the current domestic and worldwideovercapacity.Foreign government ownership: Abroad,many foreign governments own the nationalproduction of steel and aluminum. Thesegovernments thereby control commodityprice, and this can lead to overproduction.Steel and aluminum prices: Prices are de-pressed for these commodities; often theyare highly variable. This can be as damagingas continuous low prices, since fluctuatingprices prevent long-term planning.Imports: Large volumes of foreign steel andaluminum are imported that are of good qual-ity and of lower cost than can be found inthe United States.Mini-mills: These smaller, more efficient steelmills are servicing some of the markets pre-viously held by the larger integrated steelmills. This is very significant in product linessuch as bar, rod, and wire, in which increasedsupply from mini-mills has caused overca-pacity in the integrated steel mills.Restructuring: Both the aluminum and steelindustries have been undergoing restructur-ing; for instance, the U.S. steel industry isevolving with the growth of mini-mills. Withinindividual steel and aluminum companies,restructuring is also taking place; for instance,

●

●

the large U.S. aluminum producers are diver-sifying into other materials, particularly ad-vanced materials, for their future business.This factor tends to reduce U.S. primary over-capacity.Scrap recovery: Recycling of aluminum hasplayed a large part in its competitiveness.However, large amounts of recovered alu-minum scrap also displace primary aluminumin several applications,Shift to fabrication: There has been a shiftto supplying fabricated shapes rather thanproducing large units of steel (e.g., billets)to be shaped by the purchaser. This has lit-tle effect on total supply, but tends to favorindustry restructuring toward mini-mills andaway from integrated steel manufacturers.

Demand

The per capita demand for steel and aluminumhas been continuously decreasing in the UnitedStates since its peak in the early 1970s.2 The fac-tors that have tended to decrease demand are:shifting consumption patterns, market saturation,more efficient use of materials, and materials sub-stitution.

●

●

Consumer preferences: Over the past 10years, there has been a shift in consumerspending away from durable goods to serv-ices (table 6-1 ). This switch in spendingpreference is reflected in the decrease in themanufacturing sector’s contribution to thenational income since the late 1960s (downto 22 percent in 1983 from 30 percent in19653), and thus the decrease in per capitaconsumption of steel and aluminum.Market saturation: Analysts have observedthat as a country matures past the rapidgrowth phase of its industrial development,the majority of the primary industrial infra-structure has been built. This results in a de-

2 Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department Of Commerce,

World Almanac and Book of Facts, 1985, p. 152.3 lbid.

Ch. 6—Impacts of Materials Substitution on the Basic Metals Industries ● 139

Table 6-1 .—U.S. Personal Consumption Expendituresfor 1978 and 1983 (billions of dollars)

1978 1983

Expenditures [% of total Expenditures 1% of total

Durable goods:Motor vehicles &

parts $ 95.7 7.1 $ 129.3 6.0Other ., . . 104.5 7.8 150.5 7.0

Total durableg o o d s . 200,2 14.9 279.8 13.0

Nondurable goods. 528.2 39.2 801.7 37.2S e r v i c e s 618.0 45.9 1,074.4 49.8

Total personal consumptione x p e n d i t u r e s $ 1 , 3 4 6 . 4 100.0 $2,155.9 100.0

Between 1978 and 1983, personal consumption of services increased by nearly4 percent, while consumption of durable and nondurable goods decreased byabout 2 percent.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, TheWorld Almanac and Book of Facts, 1985, p. 165.

●

●

crease in the ratio of materials consumptionto per capita gross national product (GNP).In the United States, this ratio peaked for steelaround 1950 and for aluminum in the mid-1970s, and is now declining.4

Efficient use of materials: The use of a mate-rial becomes more efficient when a higherperformance per pound of material is achieved.Producers have devoted significant R&D re-sources to develop steel and aluminum prod-ucts and process technologies that requireless steel or aluminum to satisfy a particularmarket need.Materials substitution: When a new materialcan offer a cost or performance advantageover the current material in an establishedapplication, the new material will begin todisplace the old in that application. For in-stance, aluminum showed rapid growth inthe post World War II era as it replaced suchtraditional materials as wood in construction,

4E$ D. Lar~~n, M..j. Ross, and R*H. Williams, “Beyond the Eraof Materials,” Scientific American, 254(6):37, June 1986.

copper in high voltage transmission lines, andsteel in beverage cans.

Interrelationships of Factors AffectingSupply and Demand

Domestic raw steel overcapacity is significantlyincreased by several factors that are outside ofthe control of the steel industry and act to increasesupply. For instance, the factor of foreign gov-ernment ownership of steel mills encourages for-eign overproduction by mills not acting in re-sponse to market forces.

The problem of domestic overcapacity is alsoaffected by worldwide overcapacity (this providesan increased incentive for importers to import tothe United States). Industry restructuring (i.e.,growth of mini-mills, plant closings and bank-ruptcy filings, joint venture and acquisition activityin new materials) has occurred as a response todomestic and worldwide overcapacity.

Materials substitution and efficient use of ma-terials are strongly interrelated factors. The threatof materials substitution has encouraged produc-ers to apply new technologies aimed at reducingthe amount of material (and hence lowering thecost) required to meet consumer needs. In thesteel industry, this interrelationship is seen in thecase of HSLA steel and coated steels that havebeen developed in response to the threat by light-weight materials such as unreinforced plastics,PMCs, and aluminum.

Materials substitution significantly affects thetrend toward more efficient use of aluminum. Forinstance, the increasing use of PMCs in aircraftapplications has motivated the aluminum indus-try to provide lighter weight aluminum alloys andMMCs. To develop these advanced materials, thealuminum industry has undergone some restruc-turing in the form of joint ventures and acqui-sitions.

THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE END USESOF STEEL AND ALUMINUM

To understand the impacts of substitution on Tables 6-2 and 6-3 present industries classifiedthe steel and aluminum industries, it is necessary in the most recent (1 977) complete U.S. input-to know the major markets for these materials. output tables, ranked in the order of highest use

75-792 0 - 88 - 4


Table 6-2.—industries Using the Largest Amount of Steel, 1977° (in miiiions of doiiars at producers’ prices)

Use of Potential for substitutingIndustry classification steel Percent alternative materials

1. Motor vehicles and equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,471 15 High2. Heating, plumbing, and fabricated structural metal products. . . . . . . . . . 5,700 9 Medium3. Screw machine products and stampings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,318 8 Low4. New construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,567 7 Medium5. Other fabricated metal products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,791 6 Medium6. Construction and mining machinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,880 5 Low7. Metal containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,556 4 High8. General industrial machinery and equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,036 3 Low9. 0ther transportation equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,993 3 Low

10. Farm and garden machinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,432 2 Low

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................39,744 6 2 %c

alncludes all categories listed under the Primary Iron and Steel Manufacturing Classification in the 1977 Input-0utput Table: blast furnaces and steel mills, electrometal-

Iurgical products, steel wire and related products, cold finishing of steel shapes, steel pipes and tubes, iron and steel foundries, iron and steel forgings, metal heattreating, and primary metal products, not elsewhere classified.

bIncludes all categories listed under these Industry Classifications.CThere are 85 Industry classifications in the Input-output tables. The remaining 38 percent of the total U.S. steel output is consumed by the 75 industries not listed here.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, The Detailed Input-Output Structure of the U.S. Economy, 1977, Volume 1: The Use and Makeof Commodities by Industries, 1977, Washington, DC, 1984, pp. V-227.

Table 6-3.—Industries Using the Largest Amount of Aluminum, 1977a (in millions of dollars at producers’ prices)

Use of Potential for substitutingIndustry classification aluminum Percent alternative materials

1, Heating, plumbing, and fabricated structural metal products. . . . . . . . 1,950 11 Medium2. Motor vehicles and equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,276 7 Medium3. Metal containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,166 7 High4. Other fabricated metal products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675 4 Medium5. Aircraft and parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 488 3 High6. Screw machine parts and stampings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465 3 Low7. Service industry machines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447 3 Low8. Electric industrial equipment and apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 2 Low9. Other transportation equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 2 Medium

10. Engines and turbines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 2 Medium

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,385 44% C

alncludes the following categories under the primary Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Classification in the 1977 Input-output Table: primary aluminum, aluminum

rolling and drawing, and aluminum castings.bIncludes all categories listed under these Industry Classifications.CThere are 85 industry classifications in the Input-Output tables. The remaining 56 percent of the total U.S. aluminum output iS consumed by the 75 industries not listed here.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, The Detailed Input-Output Structure of the U.S. Economy, 1977, Volume 1: The Use and Makeof Commodities by Industries, 1977, Washington, DC, 1984, pp. V-227.

of steel and aluminum to lowest. Each of theseindustries has been further evaluated as to thepossibility for alternative materials substituting forsteel or aluminum. The industries that were bothmajor consumers of steel or aluminum and thatheld a high potential for substitution wereevaluated.

Table 6-2 shows that of the top 10 industriesthat use steel, 5 are judged to have a high ormedium potential for substituting alternative ma-terials. 5 The two industries of high potential aremotor vehicles and equipment, and metal con-

5 Izattt, op. cit., footnote 1, 1987.

tainers, both of which are covered in thisassessment.

Of the three largest steel-consuming industrieswith a medium potential of substitution, construc-tion is the only one covered in this chapter. Theother two, screw machine products, stampings,and other fabricated metal products, are not ana-lyzed here because these sectors cover such adiversity of types of products, each of limited dol-lar value on its own, that it is difficult to conducta reliable, in-depth analysis.

Table 6-3 shows that of the top 10 industriesthat use aluminum, seven have a high or medium

Ch. 6—Impacts of Materials Substitution on the Basic Metals Industries . 141

potential for substituting alternative materials.6

Three of these seven, which are treated in thischapter, are aircraft and parts, motor vehicles andequipment, and metal containers. In the four in-dustries of medium possibility not analyzed here(heating, plumbing, and fabricated structuralmetal products; other fabricated metal products;other transportation equipment; and engines and

——-6 Ibid.

turbines) the great diversity of products again pre-cludes a reliable analysis.

Thus, the four end uses judged to be of great-est potential for substitution of new materials fortraditional metals are: aircraft, motor vehicles,construction, and containers. I n the category ofmotor vehicles, the analysis is entirely of the au-tomobile industry. The analysis of the market forcontainers includes not only beverage containersbut food packaging as well.

POTENTIAL FOR SUBSTITUTION IN THE AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY

About 3 percent of the total aluminum output tion of aircraft. Missing this cyclic “window”and one percent of the total steel output (by dol- means that the material cannot be considered forIar value) of the United States is consumed by use until a new generation of aircraft is developed.the aircraft industry. Even though the aircraft in- Each of the materials that are candidate substi-dustry is a minor market for pounds of aluminum tutes for aluminum is at a different point in de-shipped (approximately 5 percent of the trans- velopment.portation segment), it is an important one in termsof the value of the aluminum shipped, as well asin terms of the U.S. balance of trade. The aircraftmarket is performance-sensitive and is thereforewilling to pay a premium for materials that in-crease performance. This market acts as a devel-opment market for advanced materials that havea high initial cost.

Currently, aluminum accounts for 80 percentof the structural weight of commercial aircraft.7

In military aircraft, the percentage has varied from65 percent in the 1960s (F-4) to 50 percent in the1970s (F-15) and to 55 percent in the 1980s(AV-8B).8

Although PMCs, and less developed materialssuch as A1-Li alloys, MMCs, and rapidly solidifiedaluminum alloys, are all possible future con-tenders for aircraft, it may be some time beforethey actually displace traditional aircraft materi-als. The planning cycles of aircraft have a signifi-cant effect on materials substitution. A new ma-terial must be fully developed and qualified intime to be considered for use in the next genera-

7Standard and Poor’s Industry Surveys, Metals-Nonferrous, BasicAnalysis, July 10, 1986, pp. M76-M77.

8B.A. Wilcox, “influence of Advanced Materials on the Domes-tic Minerals Industry, ” Materials and Society, 10(2):209, 1986.

Table 6-4 describes the possible use of advancedstructural materials in aircraft applications. PMCsand MMCs have been or could be used in manyNavy, Army, Air Force, National Aeronautics andSpace Administration (NASA) or civilian commer-cial helicopters, aircraft, and space structures. Todate, the motivation for this substitution hasmainly been the opportunity to achieve weightsavings. As the properties of these materials im-prove, their level of performance, and hence sub-stitution, should also increase. More important,as more experience is gained with these materi-als, their associated costs could decrease, pro-viding the major motivation for their use, espe-cially in commercial aircraft.

Reducing aircraft weight increases fuel effi-ciency, which results in lower life-cycle costs. Sig-nificant reductions in weight and increases instrength are desired to meet fuel efficiency needs.Industry experts have projected that substantialweight savings could be achieved along with prop-erty improvements; for instance, a 30-percentweight savings could be obtained with a 200-percent increase in fatigue strength by usingPMCs, and a 20-percent weight savings could ac-crue with an 80-percent improvement in stiffnessusing MMCs (see figure 6-1).


Table 6-4.—Current and Proposed Use of Advanced Materials in Aerospace Structures

System Structure Material

Aircraft:Boeing 747

Boeing 767

F-15F-18

Beech Starship IATF

Avtek 400

Helicopters:AH-64 ApacheAV-8BV/STOL

Boeing Vertol 234LHX, JVX

Space shuttle

30°/0 of exposed surface area, 10/0 of structural weight, secondarystructures

rudders, elevators, spoilers, ailerons ducting, stowage bins, parti-tions, lavatories, escape system parts, leading- and tailing-edgepanels, cowl components, landing gear doors, fairings

secondary structure, empennage partsI0% by weight of total structure; primary structure, wing applica-

tions, sandwich panel skins90% of aircraft; primary and secondary structures40% of total structure; fuselage substructure, inlet structure, in-

tegral tankage, bulkheads, fins

all primary and secondary structures

secondary structures, primary structures, i.e., fuselage, rotor blades26% of total weight; forward fuselage horizontal stabilizer, eleva-

tors, rudder, overwing fairings, wing box skins and substructure,ailerons, flaps

center section of aft rotor assemblyairframes (results in acquisition and operational cost savings,

weight savings, increased damage tolerance, etc.)

fuselage, frame support struts, payload bay doors, purging ductssystem, filament wound pressure vessels, nose cap, wing lead-ing edges, structural parts (increasing allowable temperature)

fiberglass/epoxy

graphite/epoxyKevlar/epoxygraphite-Kevlar/epoxy hybridgraphite, boron/epoxygraphite/epoxy

graphite/epoxygraphite/polyimide or

graphite/bismaleimide orsilicon carbide/aluminum

Kevlar/epoxy

Kevlar/epoxygraphite/epoxy

graphite-fiberglass/epoxy hybridgraphite/epoxy, Kevlar/epoxy,

fiberglass/epoxy, fiberglass/polyimide

graphite-fiberglass/epoxyhybrid, graphite/epoxy,Kevlar/epoxy, carbon/carbon,graphite/polyimide

SOURCE: Steven R. Izatt. “lmpacts of New Structural Materials on Basic Metals Industries,” a contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment,A p r i l 1 9 8 7 .

A note of caution is appropriate here on thestrong influence of fuel prices: If fuel prices donot increase during the next 10 years, PMCscould look less attractive compared to aluminum.Aircraft designers currently estimate that a poundof weight saved is worth $100 over the life of theaircraft. Fuel prices as of August 1986 were about55 cents per gallon. It has been estimated thatit would take at least a factor of 2 increase in thesefuel prices to make PMCs look attractive to air-craft buyers.9

The important cost factors in considering ad-vanced composites substitution for aluminum arelife-cycle costs, as noted above, and productioncosts. The major improvement in future costsshould come from improved fabrication meth-ods. The contribution of the base material coststo overall structure costs is relatively small. Forinstance, lower stiffness (30 Msi) PAN-basedgraphite fibers generally sell for approximately $20per pound. Prepreg tape made from these fibers

9Bob Hammer, Boeing Aircraft Co., personal communication,September 1987.

and infiltrated with a resin system typically sellsfor approximately $40 per pound. The final costof the finished aircraft structure can be in the rangeof $100 to $400 per pound.10

Another important cost consideration in com-paring PMCs with metals is the significantly re-duced number of parts made possible by usingPMCs. For instance, in the Bell Helicopter Tex-tron, Inc./Boeing Vertol prototype PMC helicop-ter body, the V-22 Osprey, there is a reductionin the number of airframe parts from 11,000 (alu-minum) to 1,530 (PMC). The number of fastenersis reduced from 86,000 to 7,000. The weight re-duction is from 4,687 Ibs to 3,281 Ibs.11

Figure 6-2 shows the potential savings in air-craft structural weight forecast for the next quarter-century. PMCs have the potential to give thelargest weight reduction (30 to 40 percent) usingadvanced fibers with modified epoxies and ther-

10 D. R. Tenney and H.B. Dexter, “Advances in Composites Tech-nology,” Materials and Society, 9(2):188, 1985.

11 P. N. Lagasse, “The Role of Reinforcing Fibers in Composites, ”Rubber World, May 1985, pp. 27-28.

Ch. 6—Impacts of Materials Substitution on the Basic Metals Industries “ 143

Figure 6-1 .—Relationship Between PropertyImprovement and Weight Savings for

Various Materialsr I I I 1 I 1

Fatigue, PMCs I30

20

10

StiffnessMMCs

I.

DensityAl-Li Powder

metallurgy

0v

20 40 60 80 100 200 300

Property improvement (percent)Compared with conventional materials, using advancedmaterials offers improvements in mechanical properties aswell as weight savings.

SOURCE: P.R. Bridenbaugh, W.S. Cebulak, F.R. Billman, and G.H. Hildeman, “Par-ticulate Metallurgy in Rapid Solidification,” Light Metal Age, October1985, p. 18.

Figure 6.2.—Projected Savings in Aircraft StructuralWeight Based on Selected Advanced Materials

40 “

30 “

20 “

10 “

1970 1980 1990 2000 20107150—Wrought aluminum alloy with zinc.2324—Wrought aluminum alloy with copper.

Advanced PMCs offer the greatest weight savings

SOURCE: D.R. Tenney and H.B. Dexter, “Advances in Composites Technology,”Materials and Society 9(2):186, 1985.

moplastic matrices. A1-Li and powder metallurgy(P/M) alloys are expected to be introduced overthe next 5 to 10 years and offer a 10- to 15-percentweight savings.

The open question is whether aluminum (andits new alloys and composites) or PMCs, will bethe material of choice in the next generation ofcommercial transport aircraft. Figure 6-3 showstwo possible options (extensive use of new alu-minum technologies or extensive use of PMCs)for a hypothetical commercial transport built inthe 1990s. Due to recent improvements in resins,fibers, and processing technology for PMCs, andto higher-than-projected costs for aluminum al-loys, the extensive PMC scenario currently looksvery promising. However, the actual outcome islikely to lie in between these two scenarios.

The use of A1-Li alloys or rapidly solidified tech-nologies wouId cause the total amount of alumi-inure used in aircraft applications to decline, sincethey are stronger per unit weight and/or less densethan traditional aluminum alloys. Whichever sce-nario (i. e., extensive use of PMCs or extensiveuse of new aluminum technologies as describedin figure 6-3) occurs, the use of traditional alum i-

Figure 6-3.— Breakdown of Structural Materials Use inTwo Alternative Designs of Commercial

Transport Aircraft

Boeing 767 1990-2000 TransportBaseline-Design

1% Misc.

11% Adv. ’aluminum

14% Steel a l u m i n u m / 1 2 % S t e e l8% Titanium

In the option featuring extensive use of advanced aluminum,the proportion of aluminum drops by 26 percent due to im-proved structural efficiency. In the option featuring exten-sive use of advanced composites, the proportion of aluminumdrops by 69 percent. Steel use remains virtually unchanged.SOURCE: D.R Tenney and H.B. Dexter, “Advances in Composites Technology,”

Materia/s and Society 9(2):194, 1985.


num could decrease by between 26 and 69 per-cent. Since aircraft and aircraft parts account forslightly less than 3 percent of total aluminum out-put in the United States (table 6-3), this decrease

in aircraft use of aluminum could mean a 1 to2 percent decrease in the dollar value of total U.S.aluminum use by the year 2000. Note that steeluse remains roughly constant in either scenario.

POTENTIAL FOR SUBSTITUTION IN THE AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

In evaluating substitution in the automobile in-dustry, it is very important to understand that theautomotive market is a commodity market thatis extremely cost-sensitive, compared to the highperformance-oriented aircraft market. Thus, it ismore difficult for new, high-performance (high-cost) materials to penetrate the automotive mar-ket, unless a significant cost savings can berealized.

During the past 20 years, three trends have hadmajor effects on the materials content of automo-biles in the United States. From 1967 to 1976, gov-ernment standards encouraged automakers toadd structural weight to make autos safer. In 1975the passage of the Energy Policy and Conserva-tion Act (Public Law 94-1 63) required yearly in-creases in the average fuel efficiency of each man-ufacturer’s fleet of vehicles. This trend towardfuel-efficient cars resulted in a substantial decreasein the average weight of an automobile. The ma-jority of this decrease can be attributed to down-sizing and most of the remainder to use of high-strength steels, and to a lesser extent, unreinforcedplastics and aluminum as substitutes for mild steeland iron.12

The most recent trend affecting the U.S. au-tomobile industry has been the increase in inter-national and domestic competition that has de-veloped since about 1983. The industry hasbecome increasingly cost- and quality-consciousas U.S. consumers have turned increasingly toimported vehicles. To compete in the low-growthautomotive market, one of the strategies that au-tomakers have used to keep market share is toappeal to a broad range of consumers in differ-ent market niches. For this reason, the numberof major automotive nameplates is projected toincrease from 68 in 1984 to 77 in 1989.13 This

121zaH op. cit., f o o t n o t e 1, 1 9 8 7 .

13L. L&nard, “Aljtomotive Materials War Heats Up, ” MaterialsEngineering, October 1985, p. 29.

market segmentation could mean that an increas-ing number of models will be made in smallerproduction volumes and model design couldchange more frequently.

The current trend toward market segmentation(more automotive models) could increase thelikelihood of substitution, since sheet moldingcompound (SMC) fabrication is competitive withthat of steel in low production volumes. The SMCcomposite-skinned Fiero, for instance, is assem-bled at the rate of only 100,000 cars per yearwhile the annual production rate for the steel-bodied J-body cars (Cavalier, 2000 Sunbird, Firen-za, Skyhawk, Cimarron) is 600,000. Most auto-mobiles, because of the cost/benefit advantagesfor large production runs, still have steel bodypanels.

Major materials used in automobiles are mildsteel, cast iron, HSLA steel, aluminum, unrein-forced plastics, and so-called lower technologyPMCs. These latter two are now just beginningto have a presence in the automotive market. Theability to mold unreinforced plastics, and rein-forced plastics such as sheet molding compound,into aerodynamic shapes more easily than steelmakes them strong contenders for increased sub-stitution. Stimulated by this threat, new types ofsteel products—HSLA and coated steels—havebecome available, providing the potential for con-tinued dominance of steel in automotive appli-cations. The trend toward the increased use ofprecoated steels has also reduced the potentialsubstitution of current unreinforced plastics forsteel sheets.

Table 6-5 lists examples of where lighter weightmaterials such as unreinforced plastics, fiberglassand graphite-reinforced composites, aluminum,and HSLA steel are substituting for iron and steelin automobiles. These programs are a mixture ofapproved projects and projects that have beenproposed. Most are secondary-structural or non-structural applications such as fenders, door parts,

Ch. 6—impacts of Materials Substitution on the Basic Metals Industries . 145

Table 6-5.—Current and Proposed Use of Advanced Materials in Automobiles

Material/current use Material/proposed use

Plastics:●

●

●

●

●

Ford Merkur XR4Ti: rear double spoiler (injection moldedpolycarbonate/acrylonitrile-butadiene-styren(PC/ABS)),instrument panel and glove compartment, door handles,radiator grille, light frames, rear package tray and centerconsole a

Chrysler T-Vans (commercial version): plastic back but-terfly doorsb

Ford Aerostar van (commercial version): plastic back but-terfly doorsb

GM Fiero: roof, decklid (SMC); fascias, fenders and doors(reaction-injection-molded urethane)d

Ford Aerostar van: fuel tank, lamps, front and rearbumpers’

Composites:—Fiberglass

● Chevrolet Corvette: body and transverse rear springc

● GM Eank cars: leaf springse

● Ford Aerostar hood, rear Iiftgatei

● Chrysler Dakota pickup: leaf springsb

— Fiberglass/graphite● Ford Econoline van: rear wheel drive shaft c

Aluminum:● Chevrolet Corvette: driveshaft h

● Ford Aerostar van: driveshaft, one-piece wheels, rear axlecarrier, oil pan, and enginemount bracketsi

. Ford Ranger pickup. - one-piece aluminum wheel i

● Chrysler 2.5 L balance-shaft engines: carriers for thebalance shaftsk

● Chevrolet Corvette.- cylinder heads on 5.7 L V-8i

. Dodge Dakota pickup. - intake manifold on 3.9 L V-6engine

● Lincoln Town Car: inner and outer hood panels and hingereinforcements”

Stainless steel:● 0ldsmobile Toronado: exhaust system from manifold to

tailpipe i

● Cadillac: exhaust manifolds● Ford Taurus/Sable: exhaust pipes and supportsi

High-strength steel:● Current or potential use: 35-45 ksi—outer and inner body

components such as door, hood, fender, deck, quarter,floor, pan, and dash panel; 50-60 ksi—rocker panel (sidesill), front and rear rails, wheel, frame, control arm, brack-et, bumper and reinforcement, seat track, and crossmember; 70-80 ksi—door beam, bumper reinforcement,and bracketj

Plastics:● Buick LaSabre (1987): front fendersb

● Chrysler’s P-body cars (1987): bumper fasciasb● Buick Reatta (1987): front fendersb

● Chrysler’s imported Q-coupes (1987): bumper fasciasb

. Ford Ranger pickup (1988): plastic leaf springsb

● Ford Tempo and Topaz (1988): alI plastic bumpersb

Plastics and composites:● GM composite bodied cars (GM80 Program): Camaro and

Firebird replacement cars (1991 was target date, but hasbeen cancelled)b

● Pontiac Fiero: space framee

● Chrysler Genesis Program (1990s): composite chassisg

● Ford Alpha Program (1990s): composite chassisg

● GM-100 Program (1990s): composite chassisg

Aluminum:●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Ford F-trucks and Econoline van (1987): aluminum driveshafts h

GM 3200 series V-6 engine (1989 Camaro and Firebird):cylinder block, head, two inlet manifolds, oil pan, waterpump, and pistonsi

Audi (date unspecific@ entire body—formed jointly withAlcoa l

Chrysler Voyager, Caravan, and Daytona (1987): case formanual transaxiesm

Chrysler LeBaron (1987): bumper reinforcementsGM Genll 2.8 L V-6 (1987): front cover, rocker cover,generator mounting bracket and belt tensioner, cylinderheads, and intake manifoldk

GM Genll 2.0 L 4 cylinder(1987): front cover, rocker cover,elbow on remote air cleaner assembly, air cleaner hous-ing, and cylinder headsk

AMC 4.0 L. 6-cylinderJeep engine (1987): engine covers,rocker coversk

Ford 4.9 L inline 6 cylinder for light trucks (1987): intakeplenum and branch manifold individual runnersk

Chrysler Turbo II 4 cylinder for Dodge Daytona Shelby(1987): intercooler and dual toned intake manifoldk

Chrysler 3.O L V-6 (import, 1987): cylinder heads, rockerarms, and three-piece intake manifoldsOldsmobile Buick LaSabre and Trofero (T-Type), Ponti-ac Bonneville, Chevrolet Celebrity and Cavalier Z24(1987): wheels k

Ford Econoline van (1987): driveshaft k

Cadillac Allante (1987): stamped body panels—six innerand outer hood, deck lid and removable roof panelsk

Ford 4-wheel-drive Tempo and Topaz (1987): transfercase k

Stainless steel:● Chrysler front-wheel-drive car/van lines: exhaust

systems m

SOURCES:aDesign News, Dec. 2, 1985, p. 30.

hAmerican Metal Market, Jan. 26, 1986, p. 5.bAmerican Metal Market, Aug. 21, 1986, p. 8.

iMaterials Engineering, October 1985, pp. 28-35.CPopular Science, July 1985, pp. 50-53.

jChemtech, September 1985, p. 556.dChemical Business, June 1988, pp. 10-13.

kAmerican Metal Market, Aug. 14, 1986, p. 1.lLight Metal Age, December 1985, pp. 16-17.elron Age, Dec. 20, 1985.

fAmerican Metal Market/Metal Working News, May 19, 1986, p. 1.mAmerjcan Metal Market/Metal Working News, July 21, 1986

gAutomotive News, 1985, p, 1.nMetal Progress, May 1986, p. 44.


grilles, and interior panels. Structural applications,using glass and graphite fiber-reinforced matrices,include leaf springs and drive shafts.

For the automakers, using unreinforced plas-tics and fiberglass composites trims tooling costs(tooling for a steel hood requires 52 weeks; fora fiberglass composite hood, 39 weeks14) and al-lows them to respond quickly to market and com-petitive changes because of the cost advantagesof unreinforced plastics and fiberglass compos-ites at low production volumes. Using these ma-terials also provides increased part durability anddecreases the number of necessary parts (e.g.,the space frame used in the Fiero has 300 struc-tural steel parts; by using PMCs, this total couldbe reduced to 30, and 4,000 welds could be elim-inated).15

New coating technologies, mostly of zincrome-tal, have improved the corrosion resistance of steeland helped to keep it competitive with noncor-roding reinforced plastics. One company has de-veloped an alumina-ceramic coating derived fromaerospace products (blades, vanes, and other gasturbine engine hardware) that can be used to pro-tect automobile fasteners from corrosion.16 HSLAsteels offer weight savings over traditional carbonsteels due to their higher strength. The use ofHSLA steels in automobiles has increased from5 percent in 1975 to 14 percent in 1985 and isexpected to rise above 20 percent by early in the1990s.17 Aluminum is generally not consideredcost-competitive with either HSLA or mild steel,but it is almost cost-competitive with cast iron.A recent joint venture by an aluminum companyand an auto manufacturer produced a prototypealuminum car body that weighed 46.8 percentless than a comparable steel prototype and per-formed as well as a comparable steel body.18

“’’Fiber-Glass Composites Aim at Autos’ Structural Parts, ” /ronAge, Dec. 20, 1985, p. 16.

I Slbid.lbD. F. Baxter, “Developments in Coated Steels,” Meta/ Progress,

May 1986, pp. 31-34.1 TLar~on et al., op. cit., footnote 4, p. 38”

18’’ Aluminum Car Bodies in the Future, ” Light Meta/ Age, De-cember 1985, pp. 16-17.

Substitution of lightweight materials in automo-biles is at a plateau; most of the easier substitu-tions have been made, and only those requiringsubstantial improvements in the technology ofalternative materials remain.19 When the newerunreinforced plastics and PMCs are improved tothe point where they can be used in more de-manding applications and can be produced eco-nomically, materials substitution can occur at afaster rate.

Early estimates by automakers suggested thatthe usage of lightweight materials would increasesignificantly by 1991.2021 Such a change in usagewould depend heavily on: 1 ) the concurrent de-velopment of lightweight materials technologiesand competitive costs, 2) maintenance of the cur-rent automotive industry trend toward increasedcompetitiveness, and 3) the acceptance of newmaterials by car buyers, automakers, and sup-pliers to the automotive industry.

However, automakers now feel that these earlyestimates may have been too optimistic by aboutfive years. A plausible scenario might be that com-posites could displace 3 percent of automotivesteel use by the late 1990s.22 this would meana decrease in total steel use in the United Statesof only 0.4 percent by dollar value.

Because aluminum is a lightweight material,there is not as much driving force for substitu-tion by PMCs. However, if PMCs offer other ad-vantages over aluminum, such as lower cost orgreater ease of manufacturing, PMCs may beginto substitute for aluminum in automobiles.

191zatt, op. cit., footnote 1, 1987.ZOH ,E. Chandler, “Material Trends at Mazda Motor Corp., ” Metal

Progress, May 1986, pp. 52-58.21A. Wrigley, “Alloys and New Materials – Auto Industry in Ma-

terials Flux: Alloys Outlook Still Optimistic, ” American Meta/ Mar-ket, Feb. 24, 1986, pp. 7, 10.

Zzch. 7 presents a scenario of 500,000 PMC automobiles per yearin production by the late 1990s. This would cause a drop in au-tomotive steel use of 250,000 tons or about 3 percent.

Ch. 6—impacts of Materials Substitution on the Basic Metals Industries c 147

POTENTIAL FOR SUBSTITUTION IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

New construction represents the fourth largestU.S. market for steel (about 7 percent of total steeloutput as shown in table 6-2). New constructionconsumes less than 1 percent of the total U.S.aluminum output.

High= Strength Concrete as aSubst i tute for Steel

The development and increasing use of high-strength concrete represents a market challengeto both steel structural shapes and steel rein-forcing bars. Because of the high compressivestrengths of high-strength concrete (defined to bein the range of 84 to 110 megapascals (MPa)) thismaterial can be used in structural applications thatwould otherwise use structural steel members.High-strength concrete has comparatively lowtensile strength, low stiffness, and low toughness,although its toughness is higher than that of lowerstrength concrete. In addition, it requires less rein-forcement than ordinary concrete, thus reduc-ing the need for reinforcing bars.

High-strength concrete, which has been underdevelopment for several years, has now entereda high-growth phase. Use of high-strength con-crete could increase at a much more rapid rateover the next 5 to 10 years as those various high-strength concretes under laboratory testing areused in actual construction.

The major driving force for using high-strengthconcrete is its relatively greater ratio of strengthto unit cost which makes it the most economicalmeans of carrying compressive forces. Becausecompressive strength is also higher per unit weightand volume, less massive structural members canbe used compared to lower strength concrete.Cost studies have been conducted that show theadvantage of using high-strength concrete witha minimum of steel reinforcement.23

Z3KI Committee 363, “State of the Art Report on High StrengthConcrete,” ACI 363 R-84, ACI Journal, July-August 1984, pp.366-367.

An example presented in table 6-6 shows thattotal cost of 33 steel-reinforced concrete columnsfor a 79-story building would be about $3.8 mil-lion for high-strength concrete, compared to ap-proximately $7.7 million for normal-strengthconcrete.

The major uses for high-strength concrete havebeen for columns of high rise structures and pre-cast, prestressed bridge girders, although therehave also been some special applications in dams,grandstand roofs, piles for marine foundations,decks of dock structures, industrial manufactur-ing applications, and bank vaults.24

Significant improvements in the properties ofhigh-strength concrete can occur over the next20 years. Research is underway on fibers for anew generation of fiber-reinforced high-strength

24 lbid,, pp. 403-404.

Table 6-6.—Cost Comparison of Using Normaland High-Strength Concrete for a 79-Story Building

Compressive strength

High a Normal b

(up to 12,000 psi) (4,000 psi)Materials (84 MPa) (28 MPa)

Cost per 25 x 25 ft. panelConcrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $45,035 $88,836Forms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,729 54,606Longitudinal steel . . . . . . . 34,449 87,161Spirals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,441 1,930

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $116,654 $232,533Total cost for 33 columns . . $3,849,582 $7,673,589a With the high.strerlgth concrete, column dimensions were kept constant andwere calculated so that the lowest story columns can be made with a 12,000psi (84 MPa) concrete and 1 percent longitudinal steel. The dimensions of thecolumn and the percentage of the longitudinal steel was maintained constantfor all 79 stories. The top 29 floors were designed with 4,000 psi (28 MPa), thenext 31 floors with 9,000 psi (63 MPa), while the bottom 19 floors were designedwith 12,000 psi (84 MPa).

b For normal strength concrete, all floors had concrete with a Compressivestrength of 4,000 psi (28 MPa). However, to maintain a 1 percent ratio of thelongitudinal steel, the dimensions of the designed circular columns were in-creased from 1,400 mm at the top to 2,950 mm for the bottom story,

SOURCE: S.P. Shah, P. Zia, and D. Johnston, “Economic Consideration for UsingHigh Strength Concrete in High Rise Buildings, ” a study prepared forElborg Technology Co., December 1983 As presented in: S.P. Shahand S.H. Ahmad, “Structural Properties of High Strength Concrete andIts Implications for Precast Prestressed Concrete,” Prestressed Con-crete Institute Journal 30(6):109-110, November-December 1985.

148 c Advanced Materials by Design

concretes. As this technical improvement occurs,construction markets originally dominated bysteel could become potential markets for the newconcrete. Assuming from the example in table6-6 that 60 percent less steel (by dollar value) isneeded to reinforce high-strength concrete build-ing columns, and that this figure could be usedas an estimate for the decrease due to substitu-tion in total construction use of steel (7 percentby dollar value), this would mean a decline intotal steel use by a dollar value of about 4 percent

PMCs and Unreinforced Plastics asSubstitutes for Steel and Aluminum

PMCs are highly unlikely to substitute for steelor aluminum in the construction industry to a sig-nificant degree in the foreseeable future. The costof PMCs is prohibitive compared to other con-struction materials. Steel, cement, and concretesell for dollars per ton, whereas PMCs that havematured in their processing technology (e.g., fiber-glass/epoxy) sell for dollars per pound. As withhigh-strength concrete, the general lack of famili-arity with the properties of PMCs as well as the

highly fragmented nature of the construction in-dustry tends to retard their widespread adoption.However, in the Iongterm, PMCs may find limiteduse in specialized applications such as nonmetal-lic, nonmagnetic structures, bridges, and manu-factured housing (see ch. 3).

Unlike PMCs, unreinforced plastics have thepotential to displace significant amounts of metal(mainly aluminum) in the construction industry.Sales of unreinforced plastics to the constructionmarket rose from 2,354 million metric tons in 1974to 4,212 metric tons in 1984, an increase of nearly80 percent. Sales are expected to grow an addi-tional 25 percent by 1990, to 5,265 million met-ric tons.25 These figures highlight the overall trendin the construction market toward using unrein-forced plastics. Unreinforced plastics competedirectly with aluminum in those applications thatrequire little load bearing capability such as win-dow frames, doors, and screens.

z5j.A. schlegel, Barrier Plastics: The Impact of Emerging Technol-ogy, AMA Management Briefing, American Management Associa-tion, 1985, p. 43.

POTENTIAL FOR SUBSTITUTION IN THE CONTAINER INDUSTRY

Containers and packaging constitute the thirdlargest market segment for aluminum (see table6-3) and the seventh largest market segment forsteel (see table 6-2). The large majority of rigidcontainers are used for the primary packaging ofbeer, food, and soft drinks. Total rigid containershipments increased at an average annual rateof 1.4 percent during the 1974-84 period; this rep-resents 19.6 billion containers.26 However, be-cause the food and beverage segments of the con-tainer market have reached maturity, the growthfor any one material must come at the expenseof another.

The container market represents a competitionamong several materials: aluminum, steel, unrein-forced plastics, and glass. With respect to bever-age containers, both aluminum and steel are in

ZGU.S. Department of Commerce, 1985 U. S. /ndustria/ Out/ook,

January, 1985, Washington, DC, p. 6-1.

the mature phase of their technology develop-ment. In contrast, unreinforced plastics for thesoft drink market are still relatively new technol-ogies. To compete in the soft drink market, plas-tic containers are required to have barrier prop-erties to protect the container contents againstpermeation of gases (e.g., oxygen, carbon dioxide,and water vapor), degradation due to light (espe-cially ultraviolet light), aroma/odor changes, andeffects of organic chemicals and hydrocarbons.Aluminum, steel, and glass provide an “ultimatebarrier” against these possibilities.

There are a number of driving forces for theadoption of unreinforced plastics in those mar-kets currently served by metal containers. Theseinclude potential for processing savings; shipmentand storage savings (aseptic products made ofplastic can be shipped and stored without refrig-eration); consumer preference for conveniencepackaging that allows a container to be used eas-

Ch. 6—Impacts of Materials Substitution on the Basic Metals Industries “ 149

ily, e.g., taken from freezer to microwave (or con-ventional oven) and thence to the table. The factthat some barrier plastics can be recycled mayalso be a driving force for adopting unreinforcedplastics for containers and packaging. It is esti-mated that 100 million pounds, or about 19 per-cent of the total annual polyethyleneterephtha-late (PET) production of 535 million pounds wasrecycled in 1984.27

Over the short term (2 to 5 years), aluminumcouId face a continually increasing competitivethreat from unreinforced plastics in the single-serve soft drink market. Unreinforced plasticswould not substitute directly for aluminum in theshort term, but they could continue to displaceglass in half-liter sizes and hence offer consumersa choice of the plastic container as an alternativeto the 12-ounce can. These competitive forcesdo not constitute substitution of unreinforced plas-tics for aluminum; rather, this situation would holdthe demand for cans under what it normallywould have been, thereby decreasing the over-all growth of the market for aluminum.

In the longer term (5 to 10 years), the recycla-bility of unreinforced plastics versus aluminumwill be an important consideration, as will the rela-tive weight of the two materials since weightaffects processing, shipping, and storage costs.Although the current plastic material, PET, isrecyclable (the recycled product goes into con-verting textile fiber-fill, strapping, plastic lumber,and polyols for other polymer manufacture), thisis not the material that would substitute directlyfor the aluminum beverage can. The plastic orplastic composite can (i.e., a can made of com-bined layers of plastic with special barrier prop-erties) could be made of more than one type ofplastic and hence could make recycling muchmore difficult.

Since the technology for aluminum food cansis still in a beginning stage, there could be signifi-cant advances over the next 10 to 20 years thatcould increase the aluminum can’s competitiveposition. Aluminum’s share of the food can mar-

17 I x)6 Beverage incjustry Annual Manual, produced by Naga-zines for Industry, Harcourt, Brace, )ovanovich Publications, Sep-tember 1986, p. 62.

Photo courtesy of Processed Plastics Co.

Plastalloy bench made of 100°/0 recycled plastic.

ket could increase to about 10 to 15 percent overthe next 15 years.28

The current trend toward alternative containerscould continue to become very significant in the3-to lo-year time frame, and unreinforced plas-tics could be the dominant materials for food cans.The substitution of unreinforced plastics for alu-minum in beverage containers could begin in asignificant way in the 3- to 10-year time frameand become a potentially serious competitor toaluminum in the 5- to 15-year time frame.

Assuming that in 15 years unreinforced plas-tics will capture half of all container markets foraluminum (currently 7 percent by dollar value ofall aluminum use), total U.S. aluminum use coulddecrease by 3 to 4 percent by dollar value. Totalcontainer use of steel is currently 4 percent ofthe total steel output by dollar value, and use ofsteel is likely to decrease significantly as both alu-minum and unreinforced plastics substitute forsteel in containers.

28 Alcoa 1985 Annual report.


DEVELOPMENT OF NEW INDUSTRIES AND CHANGESIN EXISTING INDUSTRIES

Substitution has the potential to become a sig-nificant force over the next 20 years as new ma-terials technologies are commercialized. Thisassessment, however, is contingent on the abil-ity of these materials to overcome key technicaland economic barriers that are identified in thisreport.

To the present time, there have been two ef-fects of materials substitution on the steel and alu-minum industries: an increase in R&D aimed spe-cifically at efforts to develop new materials; andinter- and intra-industry joint ventures aimed atnew product development in traditional as wellas advanced materials.

lntra-industry cooperative efforts in the steel in-dustry have centered on developing a new di-rect sheet casting process and on electrogalvaniz-ing (EG) lines. These efforts are being undertakenjointly (primarily due to a lack of individual com-pany resources) as responses to a recognized ma-terials substitution threat. The installation of EGlines is in direct response to more stringent auto-maker requirements concerning corrosion andsurface quality, and represent the steelmaker’strategy to ward off competition from other me-tals and unreinforced plastics.29 The commitmentto this strategy can be seen by the fact that fivenew lines came on stream in 1986 representinga $500 million investment, and that there are 13coatings for automotive sheet steel now beingproduced. 30

There have been several joint ventures betweenaluminum user and supplier industries includingone to develop and make high-performance plas-tic containers for the U.S. food industry, and onewith a foreign automaker for the developmentof a prototype aluminum auto body and frame.These efforts are direct responses by the alumi-num industry to the materials substitution threatand the potential for aluminum to substitute forsteel in automobiles.

Zgwrigley, op. cit., footnote 21 ~ 1986.JOT. Cirisafulli, “Industry Striving for Better Steels to Battle Com-

petition in Auto Market, ” American Metal Market, Mar. 11, 1986,p. 3.

In addition to diversifying into nonmetals busi-nesses, the aluminum industry is pursuing oppor-tunities in Al-Li alloys, MMCs, and rapidly solidi-fied technology. Currently, for instance, fouraluminum firms either have or are anticipatinghaving plants to produce Al-Li alloys. Because Al-Li alloys are sold to the same markets as tradi-tional aluminum, aluminum firms have a strongmarketing advantage over new firms. The wide-spread use of Al-Li alloys could also cause sig-nificant modifications to the end users of thesenew alloys.

Because lithium is poisonous even at very lowconcentrations, special precautions must be takento segregate Al-Li scrap from other aluminumscrap that would be recycled by usual methods.Because of the special precautions that must betaken, specialized machine shops and recyclingcenters could be required.

Alcoa is developing its aramid-reinforced alu-minum MMC (ARALL) to be used on commercialaircraft and Dural Aluminum Composites Corp.(a wholly owned subsidiary of Alcan Aluminum)brought 2 to 3 million pounds of capacity for sili-con carbide-reinforced aluminum MMC on linein February 1988.31

Significant substitution of advanced materialsfor aluminum and steel in the various marketsmentioned above could occur in roughly 10 to30 years after substitution has begun, based onpast experience in these or similar industries. Asthese materials begin to substitute for aluminumand steel, new industries will be formed.

PMCs and Unreinforced PlasticsIndustries

The PMC and unreinforced plastics industrieshave already established definite market seg-ments. Significant growth in sales of PMCs is ex-pected. Charles H. Kline& Co. estimates that the

31 ~JAlcan~5 Dural (Jnit to Expand Aluminum COnlpOsite CaPac-

ity, ” Petiormance Materja/s (Washington, DC: McGraw-Hill, jan.11, 1988), p. 2.

Ch. 6—Irnpacts of Materials Substitution on the Basic Metals Industries ● 157

demand for PMCs in automobiles could rise from

approximately 700,000 pounds in 1984 to 1.4 mil-

l ion pounds in 1995, and the demand for PMCs

in aircraft/aerospace applications could increasefrom approximately 8.6 million pounds in 1984to nearly 75 million pounds in 1995.32 This studyprojects that sales of PMCs will reach approxi-mately $5.5 billion by the year 2000.33 Overall,about 3 percent of total U.S. resin production isused in some type of composite. 34

Adhesives and Coating Industries

increased growth in PMC materials could alsoincrease the demand for specialty adhesives andcoatings, C. H. Kline & Co. forecasts that demandfor specialty adhesives and coatings for PMCscould grow from $35 million in 1985 to $110 mil-lion in 1995, an average rate of growth of 12.1percent per year.35 Liquid, paste, and film adhe-sives together accounted for 85 percent of thetotal dollar value of adhesives markets in 1985.

The current adhesives and coatings industrystructure is fairly concentrated, with AmericanCyanamid, Ashland, 3M, and Morton-Thiokol to-gether controlling about 60 percent of the mar-ket. However, the industry may become less con-centrated over the long term as other suppliersstrive to increase their presence.

Weaving Industry

PMCs using three-dimensional braided fibersor woven fabrics offer a significant advantage overunidirectional tape or two-dimensional prepreg,i n that there is less tendency for the PMC struc-ture to delaminate under loading. Although thenumber of companies now producing thesebraided structures is small, their numbers couldgrow as the demand for braided PMCs increases.This industry could grow quickly over the next

3$, Brown, c. H. Eckert, and C. H. KI i ne, ‘‘Advanced PolymerComposites: Five Keys to Success, ” presented to the Suppliers ofAdvanced Composite Materials Association (SACMA), in Anaheim,CA, Mar. 21, 1985,

33 IbidjqNOrman Fishman, SRI In ternat iona l , personal Communicat ion,

May 1988 ,

“’’Adhesives, Coatings Makers Banking on Composites Growth, ”

Chemical Marketing Reporter, July 21, 1986, pp. 7, 26,

Photo courtesy of AVCO Specialty Materials

Flexible interweaving of, SiC-reinforced Al to be usedin investment casting process.

Photo courtesy of Polymer Products, Inc

Integrated benches and table made from100°/0 recycled plastics.

10 to 20 years because of expected increases inthe use of braided preforms for PMCs and MMCs,especially in the aircraft industry.

Recycl ing Industry ‘

Disposal of unreinforced plastics and PMCs cur-rently pose large problems; several States nowhave legislation pending to ban nondegradableplastic products such as six-pack rings, fast foodpackaging, and egg cartons. 36 However, no via-ble technologies currently exist for degradableplastics food packaging. 37 More and more, com-

36 Robert Leaversuch, “Industry Weighs Need to Make PolymersDegradable, ” Modern Plastics, August 1987, p. 53.

3 71 bid.


panics are beginning to look toward recyclable

plastics. The fact that thermoses such as epoxiesare not recyclable may make them obsolete,according to some industry experts .38 Reinforcedor layered plastics may prove to be a major prob-lem to recycling efforts, sufficient to inhibit theiruse, according to some recycling industry repre-sentatives. 39

Three changes could occur in the recycling in-dustry. First, since recycling of aluminum canshas become a significant activity over the past 15years, the aluminum recycling industry could beseriously affected as the use of aluminum in bever-age cans decreases. It is possible, however, thatthe recyclability of aluminum could give the metala significant advantage over competing materi-als that cannot be easily recycled, e.g., unrein-forced plastics and PMCs.

The second change could occur in the steelrecycling industry. The increasing use of non-recyclable materials in uses traditionally served

~BRobe~ Leaversuch, “Practicality is the Key in New Strategiesfor Recycling,” A40dern P/asfics, August 1987, p. 67.

Jglbid.

by steel could have adverse effects on the recy-cling industry, especially in the case of automo-biles, in that scrap steel is reused in electricfurnaces.

The third change could be the emergence ofspecialty recycling facilities that can handle poi-sonous materials (e.g., aluminum alloys contain-ing lithium) or difficult-to-recycle materials (e.g.,unreinforced plastics, MMCs, or PMCs). Therecurrently exists no satisfactory commercial proc-ess to recycle these materials. However, recyclingprocesses are now under development, and it ispossible that commercially viable processes couldbe put into use as the growth of these materialsindustries proceeds.

In summary, the substitution of new materialsfor aluminum and steel in major market segmentscould create significant new industries and modifi-cations to existing industries over the next twodecades. Secondary industries such as the adhe-sives, coatings, weaving, and recycling industriescould also be affected as new materials are in-creasingly adopted. The recyclability of the newmaterials could become a major factor affectingtheir use.

Chapter 7

Case Study: PolymerMatrix Composites in

Automobiles

CONTENTS .Page

Findings..,. . . . . . . . ............... . . . 155Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...00 156B a c k g r o u n d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 7Polymer Matrix Composite Materials ... ... ...l60Performance Criteria . .....................161

F a t i g u e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 1Energy Absorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162Stiffness and Dam ping.... . . .. ...........164

Potential ManufacturingTechiques .. ..,....165. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 5High-Speed Resin Transfer Molding. ... ....169Filament Winding.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171

Impact on Production Methods . . . . . . . . . . ...173Manufacturing Approach . ................173Assembly Operation Impact . .............176Labor impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177

Impact on Support Industries....... . .......178Material Suppliers, Molders and Fabricators .178Steel Industry ...,...... . . . . . . . . ..* 179Repair Service Requirements . .............180PMC Vehicle/Component Recycling ... ... ..l80

Potential Effects of Governmental Regulations .181Hea l th Sa feguards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181Recyclability . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............181Crash Regulations . . .....................182Fuel Economy Standards . ................182

Technology Development Areas . ...........182Compression Molding . ..................182High-Speed Resin Transfer Molding.. ... ..182Fiber Technology . . . . . . .. .. .. ... + .......183Joining ● ....** ● *...... .**..... . . . . . . . . . 183R e q u i r e m e n t s . . . . . . . . . 1 8 3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183S u m m a r y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 3


7-1. Steel Body Shell Structure . . . . . . . ... ...1577-2. Ford GrFRP Vehicle . .................1587-3. Ford GrFRP Vehicle With the Composite

Components Shown. .. .. .. ... ... ... ..1597-4. Typical Fatigue Curves for (Unidirectional

GIFRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .......1617.5. Typical Fatigue Curve for SMC.... .. ...16274. Tensile Stress-Strain Curves for Steel and

Aluminum . . . . . . . ...................1627-7, Tensile Stress-Strain Curves for Graphite

Fiber Composite, Kevlar Fiber Composite,and Glass Fiber Composite . ...........163

7-8. Energy Dissipation Mechanism inCeramics . . . . . . . . ...................163

7-9. Different Collapse Mechanisms in Metaland Composite Tubes . ...............164

Figure No. Page7-10. Relationship Between Performance and

Fabrication for Composites . . . . . . . . . . . .7-11. Sheet Molding Compound Material

7-12

7-13

7-147-15

7-167-177-18

Preparation and ComponentFabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Typical SMC Production AerostarTailgate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Typical SMC Production AerostarHood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Typical SMC Truck Cab. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Prototype Escort Composite Rear FloorPan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Thermoplastic Compression Molding . . . .High-Speed Resin Transfer Molding . . . . .Squeeze Molding and Resin TransferMolding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7-19. Filament Winding Process . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-20. Typical Assembly of (a) Steel Underbody

and (b) Underbody, Bodyside AssembliesEtc. into the Completed Steel BodyShell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7-21. Typical Assembly of Composite BodysidePanel by Adhesive Bonding of lnner andOuter SMC Molded Panels . . . . . . . . . . . .

7-22. Typical One-Piece Composite BodysidePanel With Foam Core Molded byHSRTM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7-23. Typical Body Construction Assembly for

7-24

7-25

Composite Body Shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Typical Body Construction AssemblyUsing Two Major Composite Moldings . .Effect of Composite Use on Steel Use inAutomobiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tables

166

166

166

167167

168169170

171172

174

175

175

176

177

179

Table No. Page7-l, Major Weight Savings of GrFRP Over

Steel in Ford ’’Graphite LTD’’ VehicleP r o t o t y p e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 9

7-2. Crash Energy Absorption Associated WithFracture of Composites ComparedWith Steel . . . . . . . ...................159

7-3. Typical Stiffness of SelectedComposites . . . . . . . ..................165

7-4. Typical Body Construction System: SteelPanels . . . . . . . . . . ...................174

7-5. Compression Molded Structural Panels ..1757-6. Preform Fabrication Sequence . ........1757-7. Foam Core Fabrication Sequence ... ....1757-8. HSRTM Molded Structural Panels. ... ...1767-9. Body Construction Assembly Sequence ..176

7-10. Effect of Composites on BodyComplexity . . . . . . . ..................177

7-11. Automotive Steel Usage .. .. ... ... ....179

Chapter 7

Case Study: Polymer MatrixComposites in Automobiles

FINDINGS

The increased use of advanced structural ma-terials may have significant impacts on basic man-ufacturing industries. The automotive industryprovides an excellent example, since it is widelyviewed as being the industry in which the great-est volume of advanced composite materials, par-ticularly polymer matrix composites (PMCs), willbe used in the future. Motivations for using PMCsinclude weight reduction for better fuel efficiency,improved ride quality, and corrosion resistance.Extensive use of composites in automobile bodystructures would have important impacts onmethods of fabrication, satellite industry restruc-turing, and creation of new industries such asrecycling.

The application of advanced materials to au-tomotive structures will require: 1 ) clear evidenceof the performance capabilities of the PMC struc-tures, including long-term effects; 2) the devel-opment of high-speed, reliable manufacturingand assembly processes with associated qualitycontrol; and 3) evidence of economic incentives(which will be sensitively dependent on the man-ufacturing processes).

The three performance criteria applicable to anew material for use in automotive structural ap-plications are fatigue (durability), energy absorp-tion (in a crash), and ride quality in terms of noise,vibration, and harshness (generally related to ma-terial stiffness). There is emerging evidence fromboth fundamental research data and field experi-ence that glass fiber-reinforced PMCs can be de-signed to fulfill these criteria.

At present, the successful application of PMCsto automobile body structures is more dependenton quick, low-cost processing methods and ma-terials than it is on performance characteristics.There are several good candidate methods of pro-duction, including high-speed resin transfer mold-ing, reaction molding, compression molding, and

filament winding, At this time, no method cansatisfy all of the requirements for production;however, resin transfer molding seems the mostpromising.

Clearly, the large-scale adoption of PMC con-struction for automobile structures would havea major impact on fabrication, assembly, and thesupply network. The industry infrastructure oftoday would completely change; e.g., the multi-tude of metal-forming presses would be replacedby a much smaller number of molding units, mul-tiple welding machines would be replaced by alimited number of adhesive bonding fixtures, andthe assembly sequence would be modified toreflect the tremendous reduction in parts. Thiscomplete revamping of the stamping and bodyconstruction faciIities wouId clearly entail a rev-olution (albeit at an evolutionary pace) in the in-dustry. However, there would probably not bea significant impact on the size of the overall la-bor force or the skill levels required.

Extensive use of PMCs by the automotive in-dustry would necessitate the development ofcompletely new supply industries geared to pro-viding inexpensive structures. It is anticipated thatsuch developments would take place throughtwo mechanisms. First, current automotive sup-pliers, particularly those with plastics expertise,would unquestionably expand and/or diversifyinto PMCs to maintain and possibly increase theircurrent level of business. Second, the currentlyfragmented PMCs industry, together with raw ma-terial suppliers, would generate new integratedcompanies with the required supply capability.In addition, completely new industries wouldhave to be developed, e.g., a comprehensive net-work of PMC repair facilities, and a recycling in-dustry based on new technologies,

Economic justifications for using PMCs in au-tomotive are not currently available. The eco-

155


nomics will not become clear until the manufac-turing developments and associated experienceare in hand. Economics, customer perception,and functional improvements will dictate theeventual extent of usage. Present economic in-dicators suggest that PMCs would initially be usedonly for low-volume vehicles, and thus the mostlikely scenario would be limited usage of thesematerials. It is clear that a significant fraction of

annual U.S. auto production would have to con-vert to large-scale PMC usage before a major im-pact is felt by such related industries as the steelindustry, tool and die manufacturers, and chem-ical manufacturers. For example, it would takeproduction of 500,000 largely-PMC vehicles peryear to cause a 3 percent decrease in automo-tive steel use. The corresponding effect on theseindustries, therefore, would be minor.

INTRODUCTION

The use of PMC materials in the United Statesin automotive applications has gradually evolvedover the past two decades. With new materialsand processing techniques being continuouslydeveloped within the U.S. plastics and automo-tive industries, there is potential for a more rapidexpansion of these types of applications in thefuture. PMC applications, both for componentsand for major modular assemblies, appear to bea potential major growth area that could have asignificant impact on the U.S. automotive industryand associated supply industries if the requireddevelopments result in cost-effective manufactur-ing processes.

Extensive research and development (R&D) ef-forts currently underway are aimed at realizingeight potential benefits of PMC structures for theU.S. automotive industry:

●

●

●

●

●

●

weight reduction, which may be translatedinto improved fuel economy and performance;improved overall vehicle quality and consis-tency in manufacturing;part consolidation resulting in lower vehicleand manufacturing costs;improved ride performance (reduced noise,vibration, and harshness);vehicle style differentiation with acceptableor reduced cost;lower investment costs for plants, facilities,and tooling—depends on cost/volume rela-tionships;

‘This chapter is based on a contractor report prepared for theOffice of Technology Assessment, by P, Beardmore, C.F. johnson,and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., entitled “Impact of New Ma-terials on Basic Manufacturing Industries—Case Study: CompositeAutomobile Structure, ” 1987.

● corrosion resistance; and● lower cost of vehicle ownership.

However, there are areas where major uncer-tainties exist that will require extensive researchand development prior to resolution. For example:

●

●

●

●

●

high-speed, high-quality manufacturing proc-esses with acceptable economics;satisfaction of all functional requirements,particularly crash integrity and long-termdurability;repairability;recyclability; andcustomer acceptance.

The purpose of this case study is to presentscenarios showing the potential impact of PMCson the U.S. automotive industry, its supplier base,and customers. These scenarios depict the effectslikely to be generated by implementation of thetypes of materials and process techniques thatcould find acceptance in the manufacturing in-dustries during the late 1990s, provided devel-opment and cost issues are favorably resolved,

To project the potential of PMCs for automo-tive applications, it is necessary to provide a rea-sonably extensive summary of the current stateof these materials from the U.S. automotive in-dustry’s perspective. In particular, the specifictypes of PMCs showing the most promise for struc-tural applications are described, as well as themost viable fabrication processes. The particu-lar properties of greatest relevance to automo-tive applications are presented, together with anagenda for gaining the knowledge required be-fore high confidence can be placed in the struc-tural application of the materials.

Ch. 7—Case Study: Polymer Matrix Composites in Automobiles w 157

This case study illustrates the potential of PMCsby examining the case of a highly integrated PMCbody shell, as depicted in figure 7-1. Basically,this body shell is the major load-bearing struc-ture of the automobile. This basic structure, which

Figure 7-1.—Steel

does not include the hood, decklid, and doors,has been chosen as representative of the type ofassembly that might be produced in moderatevolumes as PMC materials begin to penetrate theU.S. automobile

Body Shell Structure

industry.

wSOURCE P Beardmore, C.F. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., “im-

pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy’ Composite Automobile Structure,” contractor report for OTA,1987

BACKGROUND

The economic constraints in a mass-productionindustry such as the automotive industry are quitedifferent from the aerospace or even the specialty-vehicle industry. This is particularly true in thepotential application of high-performance PMCmaterials, which to date have primarily been de-veloped and applied in the aerospace industry.At present, virtually all uses of plastics and PMCsin high-volume vehicles are restricted to decora-tive or semistructural applications.

Sheet molding compound (SMC) materials arethe highest performance composites in generalautomotive use for bodies today. However, themost widely used SMC materials contain about25 percent chopped glass fibers by weight andcannot really be classified as high-performancecomposites. Typically, SMC materials are used forgrille-opening panels on many auto lines and clo-sure panels (hoods, decklids, doors) on a few se-lect models.

The next major step for PMCs in the automo-tive business is extension of usage into truly struc-tural applications such as the primary body struc-ture, and chassis/suspension systems. These arethe structures that have to sustain the major road-Ioads and crash loads. In addition, they must de-liver an acceptable level of vehicle dynamics suchthat the passengers enjoy a comfortable ride.

These functional requirements must be totallysatisfied for any new material to find extensiveapplication in body structures, and it is no smallchallenge to PMCs to meet these criteria effec-tively. These criteria must also be satisfied in acost-effective manner. Appropriate PMC fabrica-tion procedures must be applied or developedthat satisfy high production rates but still main-tain the critical control of fiber placement anddistribution.

PMC body structures have been used in a va-riety of specialty vehicles for the past three dec-


ades; Lotus cars are a particularly well-known ex-ample. The PMC reinforcement used in thesespecialty vehicles is invariably glass fiber, typicallyin a polyester resin. A variety of production meth-ods have been used but perhaps the only thingthey have in common is that all the processes areslow, primarily because of the very low produc-tion rate of vehicles (typically, up to a maximumof 5,000 per year).2 Thus, there has been no in-centive to accelerate the development of theseprocesses for mass production. The other com-mon factor among these specialty vehicles is thegeneral use of some type of steel backbone orchassis, which is designed to absorb most of theroad loads and crash impact energy. Thus, whilethe composite body can be considered somewhatstructural, the major structural loads are not im-posed on the composite materials.

Current vehicles that include high volumes offiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) have been designedspecifically for FRP materials, as opposed to be-ing patterned after a steel vehicle. Consequently,it is not possible to make a direct comparison be-

2 lbid.

tween an FRP vehicle and an identical steel ve-hicle to derive baseline characteristics. Perhapsthe best comparison would be between the pro-totype “Graphite LTD” built by Ford, and a pro-duction steel vehicle.3 The vehicle was fabricatedby hand lay-up of graphite fiber prepreg.

This graphite fiber-reinforced plastic (GrFRP)auto is shown in figure 7-2, and an exploded sche-matic showing its composite parts is presentedin figure 7-3. The weight savings for the variousstructures are given in table 7-1. While theseweight savings (of the order of 55 to 65 percent)might be considered optimal because of the useof low density graphite fibers, other more cost-effective fibers are stiff enough to be able toachieve a major portion of these weight savings(with redesign).4 Although the GrFRP vehicleweighed 2,504 pounds compared to a similarsteel production vehicle of 3,750 pounds, vehi-cle evaluation tests indicated no perceptible dif-

3P. Beard more, J.J. Harwood, and E.J. Horton, paper presentedat the International Conference on Composite Materials, Paris, Au-gust 1980.

‘Beard more, Johnson, and Strosberg, op. cit., footnote 1.

Figure 7.2.—Ford Graphite Fiber Composite (GrFRP) Vehicle

SOURCE: P. Beardmore, C.F. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., “Impact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A Case Study: CompositeAutomobile Structure, ” contractor report for OTA, 1987

Ch. 7—Case Study: Polymer Matrix Composites in Automobiles s 159

Figure 7-3.— Ford GrFRP Vehicle With the Composite Components Shown

SMC W , , ~production grilleopening panel

ers

lower control armsSOURCE: P Beardmore, C F Johnson, and G.G. Strosberq, Ford Motor Co., “lmpact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A Case Study Composite

Automobile Structure, ” contractor report for OTA, 1987

ference between the vehicles.5 The GrFRP auto’sride quality and vehicle dynamics were judgedat least equal to those of top-quality production

‘Ibid,

Table 7-1 .—Major Weight Savings of GrFRPa

Over Steel in Ford “Graphite LTD” Vehicle Prototype

Weight in pounds

Component Steel GrFRP Reduction

Body- in-whi te . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .423.0 160.0 253.0Front end . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.0 30.0 65.0Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..283.0 206.0 77,0Wheel(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.7 49.0 42.7Hood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.0 17.2 32.3Decklid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.8 14.3 28.9Doors (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141.0 55.5 85.5Bumpers (2) . ................123.0 44.0 79.0Driveshaft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.1 14.9 6.2— —

Total vehicle . .............3750 2504 1246aGrFRP = Graphite Fiber-Reinforced PlasticSOURCE: P. Beardmore, C F Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co , “lm-

pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy: Composite Automobile Structure, ” contractor report for OTA,1987

steel LTD autos. Thus, on a direct comparisonbasis, a vehicle with an entire FRP structure wasproven at least equivalent to a steel vehicle froma vehicle dynamics viewpoint at a weight levelonly 67 percent of the steel vehicle. b

The GrFRP auto clearly showed that high-costfibers (graphite) and high-cost fabrication tech-

Table 7-2.—Crash Energy Absorption AssociatedWith Fracture of Composites Compared With Steel

(typical properties)

Relative energy absorptionMaterial (per unit weight)

High performance composites . . . . . . . 100Commercial composites . . . . . . . . . . . . 60-75Mild steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40a For example, graphite fiber-reinforced.b For example, glass fiber. reinforced.SOURCE: P. Beardmore, C.F. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., “Im-

pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy Composite Automobile Structure, ” contractor report for OTA,1987


niques (hand lay-up) can yield a vehicle that is quently, these vehicles cannot be used to developwholly acceptable in terms of handling, perform- guidelines for extensive PMC usage in high-vol-ance, and vehicle dynamics. However, crash and ume applications.durability performance were not demonstrated,and these issues will need serious developmentwork to achieve better-than-steel results. An evenbigger challenge is to translate the GrFRP auto’sperformance into realistic economics through theuse of cost-effective fibers, resins, and fabricationprocedures.

The governing design guidelines for PMCs needto be further developed to ascertain, for instance,how to design using low-cost PMC materials, andto ascertain allowable for stiffness in situationswhere major integration of parts in PMCs elimi-nates a myriad of joints. The following sectionssummarize information on composite materials,

Specialty autos of high PMC content use steel performance criteria, and potential manufactur-es the major load-carrying structure and are not ing techniques.generally priced on a competitive basis. Conse-

POLYMER MATRIX COMPOSITE MATERIALS

By far the most comprehensive property datahave been developed on aerospace-type PMCs,in particular graphite fiber-reinforced epoxiesfabricated by hand lay-up of prepreg materials.Relatively extensive databases are available onthese materials, and it would be very convenientto be able to build off this database for less eso-teric applications such as automobile structures.Graphite fibers are the favored choice in aero-space because of their superb combination ofstiffness, strength, and fatigue resistance. Unfor-tunately for the cost-conscious mass-productionindustries, these properties are attained only atsignificant expense. Typical graphite fibers costin the range of $25 per pound. There are inten-sive research efforts devoted to reducing thesecosts by using a pitch-based precursor but themost optimistic predictions are for fibers in therange of $5 to 10 per pound, which would stillkeep them in the realm of very restricted poten-tial for consumer-oriented industries.7

The fiber with the greatest potential for automo-bile structural applications is E-glass fiber–cur-rently, $0.80 per pound—based on the optimalcombination of cost and performance.8 Similarly,the resin systems likely to dominate at least in thenear term are polyester and vinyl-ester resinsbased primarily on a cost/processability trade-offversus epoxy. Higher performance resins will only

‘Ibid.8 lbid.

find specialized applications (in much the sameway as graphite fibers), even though their ultimateproperties may be somewhat superior.

The form of the glass fiber used will be veryapplication-specific, and both chopped and con-tinuous glass fibers should find extensive use.Most structural applications involving significantload inputs will probably use a combination ofboth chopped and continuous glass fibers withthe particular proportions of each depending onthe component or structure. Because all the fabri-cation processes likely to play a significant rolein automotive production are capable of handlingmixtures of continuous and chopped glass, thisrequirement should not present major restrictions.

One potential development likely to come aboutif glass fiber PMCs come to occupy a significantportion of the structural content of an automo-bile is the tailoring of glass fibers and correspond-ing specialty resin development. The size of theindustry (each pound of PMC per vehicle trans-lates into approximately 10 million pounds peryear in North America) dictates that it would beeconomically feasible to have fiber and resin pro-duction tailored exclusively for the automotivemarket. 9 The advantage of such an approach isthat these developments will lead to incrementalimprovements in specific PMC materials, whichin turn should lead to increased applications andincreased cost-effectiveness.

9Ibid.

Ch. 7—Case Study: Polymer Matrix Composites in Automobiles ● 161

Although thermoset matrix PMCs will probablyconstitute the buIk of the structural applications,thermoplastic-based PMCs formed by a compres-sion molding process may well have a significantbut lesser role to play.

Most of the compression-molded thermoplas-tics in commercial use today tend to concentrateon polypropylene or nylon as the base resin. Thereason is simply the economic fact that these ma-terials tend to be the least expensive of the engi-neering thermoplastics and are easily processed.Both of these materials are somewhat deficient

in heat resistance and/or environmental sensitivityrelative to vehicle requirements for high-perfor-mance structures.

Other thermoplastic matrices for glass fiber-reinforced PMCs are under development, andmaterials such as polyethyleneterephthalate (PET)hold significant promise for the future. The ex-tent to which thermoplastic PMCs will be usedin future structures will be directly dependent onmaterial developments and the associated eco-nomics.

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

From a structural viewpoint, there are two ma-jor categories of material response critical to ap-plying PMCs to automobiles. These are fatigue(durability) and energy absorption. In addition,there is another critical vehicle requirement, ridequality, which is usually defined in terms of noise,vibration, and ride harshness, and is generallyperceived as directly related to vehicle stiffnessand damping. Material characteristics play a sig-nificant role i n this category of vehicle response.These three categories will be discussed below.

Fatigue

The specific fatigue resistance of glass fiber-reinforced plastics (GIFRP) is a sensitive functionof the precise constitution of the material. How-ever, there are also preliminary research indica-tions of the sensitivity to cyclic stresses. (For a fur-ther discussion of chopped and continuous glassfibers, see ch. 3.)

For unidirectional GIFRP materials, the fatiguebehavior can be characterized as illustrated in fig-ure 7-4. The most important characteristic in fig-ure 7-4 is the fairly well-defined fatigue limit ex-hibited by these materials; as a guiding principlethis limit can be estimated as approximately 35to 40 percent of the ultimate strength.10 A choppedglass PMC, by contrast, would have a fatigue limitcloser to 25 percent of the ultimate strength and

10 C.K. H. Dharan, Journal oiMater/a/s .$c/ence, VOI. 10, 1975, PP.1665-70.

Figure 7-4.—Typical Fatigue Curves forUnidirectional Glass Fiber Composite (GIFRP) as aFunction of Volume Fraction of Glass Fibers (VF)

1 10 102 103 104 10’ 10’ 107

2 NF

óA is defined as the amplitude of the cyclicly applied stress.NF is the number of cycles to failure.Fatigue is described by the number of cycles to failure at agiven cyclicly applied stress.

SOURCE: P. Beardmore, C.F. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., “Im-pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy: Composite Automobile Structure, ” contractor report for OTA,1987.

tends to produce less reliable fatigue test data.Figure 7-5 shows the scatter in fatigue test datafor SMC.11 12

It is also important to note that the different fail-ure modes in PMCs (in comparison to metals) can

I IT. R, Smith and M.). Owen, Modern P/astics, April 1969, pp.124-29.

12A, po t e m a n d z. Hashim, A / A A jourr?a/, VOI. 14, 1976, PP.

868-72.


a

Figure 7-5.—Typical Fatigue Curve forSheet Molding Compound

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0 10 102 10’ 10’ 105 10’

Number of cycles to failureSMC exhibits significant scatter in fatigue test data.

SOURCE: P. Beardmore, CF. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., “im-pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy: Composite Automobile Structure, ” contractor report for OTA,1987.

result in different design criteria for these mate-rials, depending on the functionality involved. Forinstance, a decrease in stiffness can occur undercyclic stressing long before physical cracking andstrength deterioration occur. If stiffness is a criti-cal part of the component function, the loss instiffness under the cyclic road loads could resultin loss of the stiffness-controlled function with noaccompanying danger of any loss in mechanicalfunction. This phenomenon does not occur insteel.

As a guiding principle, it follows from the abovethat wherever possible, automotive structuresshould be designed such that continuous fiberstake the primary stresses and chopped fibersshould be present to develop some degree ofisotropic behavior. It is critical to minimize thestress levels, particularly fatigue stresses, that haveto be borne by the chopped fibers,

There is emerging evidence from both funda-mental research data and field experience withPMC components that glass fiber-reinforced PMCscan be designed to withstand the rigorous fatigueloads experienced under vehicle operating con-ditions. The success of PMC leaf springs and SMCcomponents attests to the capability of PMCs towithstand service environments.

Although the data for all combinations of PMCmaterials are not yet available, a sufficient data-

base is available such that conservative estimatescan be developed and lead to reliable designs.It should be emphasized, however, that the me-chanical properties of PMCs (much more thanisotropic materials) are very sensitive to the fabri-cation process. It is imperative that properties berelated to the relevant manufacturing techniqueto prevent misuse of baseline data.

Energy Absorption

The elongation (strain) behavior of a materialunder stress can indicate a great deal about thematerial’s ability to absorb crash energy. Metalsexhibit linear stress-strain behavior only up to acertain point, beyond which they plastically de-form (see figure 7-6). This plastic deformation ab-sorbs a large amount of crash energy that couldotherwise injure passengers.

The stress-strain curves of all high-performancePMCs are essentially linear in nature, as shownin figure 7-7. This resembles the behavior of brittlematerials such as ceramics. Materials that are es-

Figure 7-6.—Tensile Stress-Strain Curves for

50

40

30

20

10

Steel and Aluminum

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0.002 0.006 0.01

StrainHRLC—hot rolled leaded carbon steel1100-H12—strain hardened low alloy aluminum

The plastic region of metal stress-strain behavior absorbscrash energy.

SOURCE: P. Beardmore, C.F. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., “im-pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy: Composite Automobile Structure,” contractor report for OTA,1987.

Ch. 7—Case Study: Polymer Matrix Composites in Automobiles “ 163

Figure 7-7.—Tensile Stress-Strain Curves for GraphiteFiber Composite (GrFRP), Kevlar Fiber Composite

(KFRP), and Glass Fiber Composite (GIFRP)

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Strain, 0/0The linearity of the curves means that these composites be-have as brittle materials during fracture (cf fig. 7-6). There isno plastic region to absorb crash energy.

1 KSI = 103 psi

SOURCE’ P Beardmore, C.F. Johnson, and G.G. Slrosberg, Ford Motor Co., “im-pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy Composite Automobile Structure, ” contractor report for OTA,1987

sentially elastic to failure (PMCs, ceramics) mightbe thought to have no capacity for energy ab-sorption since no energy can be absorbed throughplastic deformation. However, ceramics havebeen used for decades as armored protectionagainst high-velocity projectiles.

In fact, energy absorption is achieved by spread-ing the localized impact energy into a high-vol-ume cone of fractured ceramic material, as shownschematically in figure 7-8. A large amount offracture surface area is created by fragmentationof the solid ceramic, and the impact energy isconverted into surface energy resulting in suc-cessful protection and very efficient energy dis-sipation. Brittle materials can be very effectiveenergy absorbers, but the mechanism is fracturesurface energy rather than plastic deformation.

Figure 7.8.—Energy Dissipation Mechanism

D

Projectile

in- Ceramics

Energydissipation“cone”

Energy absorption occurs in ceramics and brittle PMCs byspreading local impact energy into a high-volume cone offractured material.

SOURCE: P. Beardmore, CF. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., “im-pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy: Composite Automobile Structure,” contractor report for OTA,1987,

This analogy leads directly to the conclusion thathigh-performance PMCs may well be able to ab-sorb energy by a controlled disintegration (frac-ture) process.

Evidence is emerging from laboratory test dataon the axial collapse of PMC tubes that efficientenergy absorption needed for vehicle structurescan be achieved in these materials. A compari-son between the collapse mechanisms of metalsand PMCs is shown in figure 7-9. Glass fiber- andgraphite fiber-reinforced PMCs behave as shownin figure 7-9(b). By contrast, PMCs using fibersconsisting of highly oriented long-chain polymers(e.g., Kevlar) collapse in a metal-like fashion usingplastic deformation as the energy absorbing mech-anism. The fragmentation/fracture mechanismtypical of glass fiber PMCs can be very effectivein absorbing energy, as illustrated in table 7-2.

It is particularly signif icant that although high-

per formance, h igh ly or iented PMCs prov ide the

maximum energy absorption, commercial-typePMCs yield specific energy numbers considera-bly superior to metals. Thornton and coworkershave accumulated extensive data on energy ab-sorption in composites .13 14 15

13p H . T~OrntOn and P.j. Edwards, journa/ of Composite Materi-als, vol. 13, 1979, pp. 274-82.

14P. H. Thornton and P.j. Edwards, Journa/ of cOrnP05;te Mater/-

d/s, VOI. 16, 1982, pp. 521 -45 .I sp H, Thornton, j.j. Harwood, and P. Beard more, International

Journal of Composite Structures, 1985.

164 Advanced Materials by Design

Figure 7-9.—C)ifferent Collapse Mechanisms in(a) Metal and (b) Composite Tubes, for

Energy Absorption

a) energy, absorption by plastic deformationb) fracture surface energy dissipation

SOURCE: P. Beardmore, C.F. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., “lm.pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy: Composite Automobile Structure,” contractor report for OTA,1987.

Virtually all the energy absorption data avail-able to date have been developed for axial col-lapse of relatively simple structures, usually tubes.The ability to generate the same effective fracturemechanisms in complex structures is still unre-solved. In addition, it is well known from obser-vations on metal vehicles that bending collapse

normally plays a significant part in the collapseof the vehicle structure, and it is consequentlyof considerable importance to evaluate energyabsorption of composites in bending failure.

Just as in metals, little data are available onenergy absorption characteristics in bending.There is no reason to believe that the energy ab-sorption values of metals relative to PMCs inbending should change significantly from the ra-tios in axial collapse except that bending failure(fracture) in PMCs may tend to occur on a morelocalized basis than plastic bending in metals. Ifthis does indeed occur, then the ratio couldchange in the favor of metals.

Other crash issues involve the capacity to ab-sorb multiple and angular impacts and the long-term effects of environment on energy absorp-tion capability. In general, practical data from arealistic, vehicle viewpoint are not yet in hand.An additional, significant factor is the consumeracceptance of these materials as perceived in re-lation to safety. A negative perception would bea serious issue on something as sensitive as safety,and better-than-steel crash behavior will be re-quired before wide-scale implementation of PMCscan occur. Conversely, a positive perceptionwould be a valuable marketing feature and pro-vide an additional impetus for PMC applications.

Stiffness and Damping

Glass fiber-reinforced PMCs are inherently lessstiff than steel. Some typical values for varioustypes of PMC are listed in table 7-3. There aretwo offsetting factors to compensate for these ma-terial limitations. First, an increase in wall thick-ness can be used to offset partially the lesser ma-terial stiffness. Also, local areas can be thickenedas required to optimize properties. Because PMCshave a density approximately one-third that ofsteel, a significant increase in thickness can beachieved while maintaining an appreciable weightreduction.

The second, and perhaps the major, offsettingfactor is the additional stiffness attained in PMCsas a result of part integration. This integrationleads directly to the elimination of joints, whichresults in significant increases in effective stiffness.It is becoming increasingly evident that this syn-


Table 7-3.—Typical Stiffness of Selected Composites

Material Stiffness (lO6psi)

Unidirectional GrFRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Unidirectional GIFRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Unidirectional Kevlar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11XMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5SMC-R50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3SMC-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3SOURCE: P. Beardmore, C.F. Johnson, and G.G. Stromberg, Ford Motor Co. ’’lm-

pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy: Composite Automobile Structure, ” contractor report for OTA,1987.

ergism is such that structures of acceptable stiff-ness and considerably reduced weight are feasi-ble in glass fiber-reinforced PMCs. As a rule ofthumb, a glass FRP structure with significant partintegration relative to the steel structure beingreplaced can be designed for a nominal stiffnesslevel of 50 to 60 percent of the steel structure.16

Such a design procedure should lead to adequatestiffness and to typical weight reductions of 20to 50 percent.17

lbgeardmore, Johnson, and Strosberg, Op. cit. , footnote 1,1‘Ibid.

The stiffness requirement for vehicles is nor-mally dictated by vehicle dynamics characteris-tics. The historical axiom in the vehicle engineer’sdesign principles is the stiffer the better. How-ever, there are some intangible factors that en-ter the overall picture, in particular the dampingfactor.

It is an oversimplification to assume stiffnessalone dictates vehicle dynamics, although it un-questionably dominates certain categories. Damp-ing effects can play an equally significant role i nmany categories of body dynamics, and the factthat the damping of PMC materials considerablyexceeds that of metals is relevant to the overallscenario. Most experts involved with PMC com-ponent/structure prototype development feel thatsome aspect of body dynamics (usually noise orvibration) is improved but few quantitative dataare available to document the degree of improve-ment. If customers share this perception, PMCswill receive impetus for structural usage.

POTENTIAL MANUFACTURING TECHNIQUES

The successful application of PMCs to automo-tive structures is more dependent on the abilityto use rapid, economic fabrication processes thanon any other single factor. The fabrication proc-esses must also be capable of close control ofPMC properties to achieve lightweight, efficientstructures.

Currently, the only commercial process thatcomes close to satisfying these requirements iscompression molding of sheet molding com-pounds (SMCs) or some variant on this process.There are, however, several developing processesthat hold distinct promise for the future in thatthey have the potential to combine high rates ofproduction, precise fiber control, and high degreesof part integration.

The requirements for precise fiber control, rapidproduction rates, and high complexity demandthat automotive processes be in the region of de-veloping processes shown schematically in fig-ure 7-10. The three most important evolving proc-esses are compression molding, high-speed resin

transfer molding, and filament winding. Each ofthese processes is examined below.

Compression Molding

This section discusses compression moldingtechniques; these are most often used with ther-mosetting resins but can be used with thermo-plastic resins.

Thermosetting Compression Molding

Figure 7-11 presents a schematic of the SMCprocess, depicting both the fabrication of theSMC material and the subsequent compressionmolding into a component. This technology hasbeen widely used in the automobile industry forthe fabrication of grille-opening panels on manyauto lines, and for some exterior panels on se-lected vehicles. Tailgates (figure 7-12), and hoods(figure 7-13) are examples on autos and lighttrucks; the entire cab on some heavy trucks (fig-ure 7-14) is constructed in this manner.


Figure 7-10.—Relationship Between Performance andFabrication for Composites

Automotive Composite Process Development

Size,complexity,performance

Handlay-up

/

/

Region of developing processes(i.e., high-speed resin transfer)

Thermoplastic stamping

Viable commercial processes must be able to produce a largenumber of high performance parts.SOURCE: P. Beardmore, C.F. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., “im-

pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy: Composite Automobile Structure,” contractor report for OTA,1987.

Figure 7-11 .—Sheet Molding Compound MaterialPreparation and Component Fabrication

Sheet Molding- Chopped

galss

SOURCE: P. Beardmore, CF. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., “im-pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy: Composite Automobile Structure, ” contractor report for OTA,1987.

The process consists of placing sheets of SMC(1 to 2 inch long chopped glass fibers in chemi-cally thickened thermoset resin) into a heatedmold (typically at 3000 F) and closing the moldunder pressures of 1,000 pounds per square inch(psi) for about 2 to 3 minutes to cure the mate-rial. Approximately 80 percent of the mold sur-face is covered by the SMC charge, and the ma-terial flows to fill the remaining mold cavity asthe mold closes.

The above description of the SMC process de-lineates material primarily used for semistructuralapplications rather than high load bearing seg-ments of the structure that must satisfy severedurability and energy absorption requirements.

Figure 7.12.—Typical Sheet Molding CompoundProduction Aerostar Tailgate

SOURCE: P. Beardmore, C.F. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., “im-pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy: Composite Automobile Structure,” contractor report for OTA,1987,


To sustain the more stringent structural demands,it is normalIy necessary to incorporate apprecia-

Figure 7-13.—Typical SMC Production Aerostar Hood

Figure 7-14.—Typical SMC Truck Cab

SOURCE: P. Beardmore, C.F. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., “im-pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy: Composite Automobile Structure, ” contractor report for OTA,1987.

ble amounts of continuous fibers in predesignatedlocations and orientations.

The same basic SMC operation can be used toincorporate such material modifications either byformulating the material to include the continu-ous fibers along with the chopped fibers or byusing separate charge patterns of two differenttypes of material. The complexity of shape anddegree of flow possible are governed by theamount and location of the continuous glass ma-terial. Careful charge pattern development is nec-essary for components of complex geometry. Atypical example of a prototype rear floor panfabricated by this technique is shown in figure7-15.18

The limitations of compression molding of SMC-type materials in truly structural applications haveyet to be established. Provided that continuousfiber is strategically incorporated, these materialspromise to be capable of providing high structuralintegrity and may well prove to be the pioneer-ing fabrication procedure in high load bearing ap-plications. The state of commercialization of thisprocess is advanced compared to other evolvingtechniques and this will provide a lead time for

SOURCE P Beardmore, CF. Johnson, and G G Strosberg, Ford Motor Co , “im-pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy Composite Automobile Structure, ” contractor report for OTA,1987

18c, F. Johnson and N .G. Chavka, ‘‘An Escort Rear Floor pan,Proceedings ot’the 40th Annual TechrricJ/ Conference, Atlanta, GA,Society of the Plastics Industry, January 1985,


Figure 7-15.—Prototype Escort Composite RearFloor Pan

SOURCE: P. Beardmore, C.F. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., “im-pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy: Composite Automobile Structure,” contractor report for OTA,1987.

compression molding to branch into higher per-formance parts.

Although compression molding of SMC-typematerials is an economically viable, high produc-tion rate process in current use, there are somelimitations inherent in the process. In the longerterm, these will restrict applications and tend tofavor the developing processes. For instance, ma-terial flow in the compression step results inimprecise control of fiber location and orienta-tion. Typically, variations in mechanical proper-ties of a factor of 2 throughout the componentare not unusual based on an initial charge-patterncoverage of approximately 70 percent.

Such uncertainty in properties introduces relia-bility issues and encourages conservative designs

that yield a heavier-than-necessary componentor structure. Currently, extensive research effortsare underway to develop SMC-type materials thatwill allow 100 percent charge pattern coverageand that will attain high, uniform mechanicalproperties with minimal flow. These materials canalso be molded at lower pressures on smaller ca-pacity presses. Materials developments such asthese may well make the newer breed of SMCsmuch more applicable to highly loaded structuresthan has hitherto been envisioned.

Another potential limitation of compressionmolding is the degree of part integration that isattainable. The basic strategy in PMC applicationsis to integrate as many individual (steel) piecesas possible to minimize fabrication and assem-bly costs (which offsets increased material costs)and to minimize joints (which increases effectivestiffness). Compression molding requires fairlyhigh molding pressures (about 1,000 pounds psi)and thus limits potential structures in area sizeand complexity (particularly in three-dimensionalgeometries requiring foam cores).

Consequently, although compression moldingis likely to play a key role in the developmentof PMCs in structural automotive applications inthe next decade, ultimately the process is unlikelyto provide composite parts of optimum structuralefficiency and weight. Nevertheless, compressionmolding is currently the only commercial PMCprocess capable of satisfying the economic con-straints of a mass-production industry.

Thermoplastic Compression Molding

The process of thermoplastic compressionmolding (stamping) is attractive to the automo-tive industry because of the rapid cycle time andthe potential use of some existing metal stamp-ing equipment. Thermoplastic compression mold-ing at its current level of development achievescycle times of 1 minute for large components.

Figure 7-16 presents a schematic of the proc-ess. Typically, a sheet of premanufactured ther-moplastic and reinforcement is preheated abovethe melting point of the matrix material and thenrapidly transferred to the mold. The mold isquickly closed until the point where the mate-rial is contacted, and then the closing rate is


Figure 7-16.—Thermoplastic Compression Molding

Heated blank loaded Mold closing, compressinginto mold material to fill cavity

SOURCE” P. Beardmore, C F. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., “im-pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy: Composite Automobile Structure” contractor report for OTA,1987

slowed. The material is formed to shape and flowsto fill the mold cavity much the same as ther-moset compression-molded SMC. The materialis cooled in the mold for a short period of timeto allow the part to harden, and then the moldis opened and the component is removed.

Thermoplastic compression molding is cur-rently used in automobiles to form low-cost semi-structural components such as bumper backupbeams, seats, and load floors. Commercially avail-able materials range from wood-filled polypropy-lene and short glass-filled polypropylene withrelatively low physical properties, to continuousrandom glass-reinforced materials based on poly-propylene or PET which offer somewhat higherphysical properties. Other materials, based onhighly oriented reinforcements and such resinsas polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and polyphony -Iene sulfide (PPS), are in use in the aerospace in-dustry. These materials are expensive and arelimited in their conformability to complex shapes.

Higher levels of strength and stiffness must bedeveloped in low-cost materials before they canbe used in structural automotive applications. At-tempts have been made to improve the proper-ties of stampable materials through the use ofseparate, preimpregnated, unidirectional rein-forcement tapes. These materials are added tothe heated material charge at critical locationsto improve the local strength and stiffness. Usingthese materials adds to the cost of the materialand increases cycle times slightly.

Although effective for simple configurations,location of the oriented reinforcement and repro-ducibility of location are problems in complexparts. To be most effective, these types of rein-forcements ultimately will have to be part of thepremanufactured sheet or be robotically applied.Current research is in progress in the area of ther-moplastic sheet materials with oriented reinforce-ment in critical areas. For application to automo-tive structures, these materials will have to retainthe geometric flexibility in molding (i. e., abilityto form complex shapes with the reinforcementin the correct location) exhibited by today’s com-mercial materials.

The question of part integration is a major is-sue in the expanded use of this process. The highpressures (1 ,000 to 3,000 psi) required limit thesize of components that can be manufactured onconventional presses. Thermoplastic compressionmolding is also limited in its ability to incorporatecomplex three-dimensional cores required for op-timum part integration.

If very large integrated structures are requiredfrom an overall economic viewpoint, thermoplas-tic compression molding will be restricted tosmaller components such as door, hood, anddeck lid inner panels in which geometry is rela-tively simple and/or part integration is limited dueto physical part constraints. If very large-scale in-tegration proves too expensive, then thermoplas-tic compression molding will exhibit increasedmarket penetration. Ongoing long-range researchin the area of low-pressure systems and incorpo-ration of foam cores in moldings could signifi-cantly alter this outlook in the longer term.

High-Speed Resin Transfer Molding

Fabrication processes that permit precise fibercontrol with rapid processability would overcomemany of the deficiencies outlined above. The useof some kind of preform of oriented glass fiberspreplaced in the mold cavity, followed by the in-troduction of a resin with no resultant fiber move-ment would satisfy the requirements for optimumperformance and high reliability.

The basic concepts required for this process arepracticed fairly widely today in the boat-building


and specialty-auto business. However, with fewexceptions, the glass preform is hand-constructedand the resin injection and cure times are of theorder of tens of minutes or greater. Also, dimen-sional consistency necessary for assembling high-quality products has not been studied for thisprocess.

Major reductions in manufacturing time andautomation of all phases of the process are nec-essary to increase automotive production rates.However, the basic ingredients of precise fibercontrol and highly integrated complex part ge-ometries (including, for instance, box sections)are an integral part of this process and offer po-tentially large cost benefits.

There are two basic elements associated withthe high-speed resin transfer molding (HSRTM)process that must be developed. The assemblageof the glass preform must be developed such thatit can be placed in the mold as a single piece.In addition, the introduction of the resin into themold must be rapid and the cure cycle must beequally fast to provide a mold-closed/mold-opencycle time of only a few minutes, A schematicof the process is presented in figure 7-17.

There are two processes currently in use thatmay have the potential to offer rapid resin injec-tion and cure times. One is resin transfer mold-ing. Currently in widespread use at slow rates,

Dry glass

Figure 7-17.–High-Speed Resin Transfer Molding (HSRTM)

fiber

E p o x y shaping die J

Heated steel/aluminum die ‘“ Q

Resin pump

Glass preform

SOURCE: P. Beardmore, C.F, Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor-Co., “Impact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A Case Study: CompositeAutomobile Structure,” contractor report for OTA, 1987.


it could be accelerated dramatically by the useof low-viscosity resins, multiport injection sites,computer-controlled feedback injection controls,and sophisticated heated steel tools. There do notappear to be any significant technological bar-riers to these kinds of developments, but it willrequire a strong financial commitment to proveout such a system. A schematic of the processis presented in figure 7- I 8, which also illustratesa variant on the process usually termed squeezemolding.

The second process that promises rapid injec-tion and cure cycles is reaction injection mold-ing (RIM). In reaction injection molding, twochemicals are mixed and injected simultaneously;during injection the chemicals react to form athermosetting resin. Once the dry glass preformis in the mold, the resin can be introduced byany appropriate procedure, and reaction injec-tion would be ideal, provided the resultant resinhas adequate mechanical properties. The inher-ent low viscosity of RIM resins would be idealfor rapid introduction into the mold.

Full three-dimensional geometries includingbox sections, are attainable by preform molding.In addition, only low-pressure presses are nec-essary. The high degree of part integration max-imizes effective stiffness and minimizes assembly.

In principle, major portions of vehicles couldbe molded in one piece; for instance, Lotus autobody structures consist of two major pieces (al-beit molded very slowly) with one circumferen-tial bond. If similar-size complex pieces could bemolded in minutes, a viable volume productiontechnique could result.

Filament Winding

Filament winding is a PMC fabrication processthat for some geometric shapes can bridge thegap between slow, labor-intensive aerospace fabri-cation techniques and the rapid, automated fabri-cation processes needed for automotive manu-facturing. The basic process uses a continuousfiber reinforcement to form a shape by windingover some predetermined path. Figure 7-19 pro-vides a process schematic.

Figure 7-18.—Squeeze Molding and Resin Transfer Molding

Squeeze molding

Resin transfer molding

Fiber preform.1 L

SOURCE: P. Beardmore, C.F. Johnson, and G.G, Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., “Impact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A Case Study: CompositeAutomobile Structure, ” contractor report for OTA, 1987.


Figure 7.19.—Filament Winding Process

Glass

Filamentimpregnated applicationreinforcement

/ .

headtape

Resinimpregnationbath

Rotating. —componentmandrel

SOURCE: P. Beardmore, C.F. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., “Impact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A Case Study: CompositeAutomobile Structure,” contractor report for OTA, 1987.

The complexity and accuracy of the windingpath are highly controllable with microcomputer-controlled winding machines. Thin, hollow shapeshaving high fiber-to-resin ratios are possible,thereby making the process well suited to light-weight, high-performance components. Glass fi-ber, aramid, or carbon fiber can be used as thewinding material. Filament winding can use ei-ther thermosetting or thermoplastic resin systems.

The uniform fiber alignment afforded by theprocess provides high reliability and repeatabil-ity in filament-wound components. Some simpleshapes, such as leaf springs, can be fabricated bythis process and are currently in production ona limited basis.

Thermoset Filament Winding

The majority of filament winding done todayuses thermosetting resin systems. In the thermosetfilament-winding process, the resin and reinforce-

ment fibers are combined (referred to as wettingout of the reinforcement) immediately prior tothe winding of the fibers onto the part. Thewetting-out and winding processes require pre-cise control of several variables. Reinforcementtension, resin properties, and the fiber/resin ra-tio all relate directly to the final physical proper-ties of the part. As the winding speed and partcomplexity increase, these variables become in-creasingly difficult to control.

Winding of complex parts at automotive pro-duction rates will require major process devel-opments. The likely potential of thermoset fila-ment winding in automotive applications is in thefabrication of simple shapes such as leaf springs,in which the cost penalty involved due to slowproduction speeds can be offset by a need forhigh reliability and maximum use of materialproperties.


Thermoplastic Filament Winding

Filament winding of thermoplastic materialsrepresents both the leading edge of this technol-ogy and the area in which its potential benefitto the automotive industry is greatest.

Thermoplastic filament winding uses a rein-forcement preimpregnated with a thermoplasticresin rather than a reinforcement impregnatedwith a thermosetting resin at the time of wind-ing. The preimpregnated filament or, more often,tape, is wound into the appropriate shape in amanner similar to the thermosetting filament-winding process, with the exception of a localheating and compaction step.

The reinforcement tape is heated with hot airor laser energy as it first touches the mandrel. Theheat melts the thermoplastic matrix both on thetape and locally on the substrate permitting aslight pressure applied by a following roller toconsolidate the material in the heated area. Be-cause the reinforcement filament is already wetout in a prepregging process, the substrate is so-lidified over its entirety with the exception of asmall zone of molten material in the area of con-solidation.

The limitations with respect to filament tension,filament wet-out, and speed at which a wet fila-ment can be pulled through a payout eye are nolonger a major concern with thermoplastic fila-ment winding. Thick sections can be rapidlywound, and nongeodesic and concave sectionscan be formed. However, the applicability to ge-ometries as complex as body structures is notestablished. Currently, problem areas exist in thecarryover of physical properties due to the limitedamount of research that has been done on theprocess. There are problems with the control ofthe heating and consolidation of the thermoplas-tic materials that yield less than predicted valuesfor tensile strength and interlaminar shear strength.

Although the thermoplastic materials will likelyexpand the structural component applications inwhich thermoplastic filament winding can eco-nomically compete with thermoset filament wind-ing, the increased speed and shape capabilitieswill not entirely offset the limited degree of partintegration possible. The inability to integrate boxsections with large flat paneIs in a one-piece struc-ture having complex geometry will tend to limitthe penetration of filament winding in bodystructures.

IMPACT ON PRODUCTION METHODSThe following sections discuss the various im-

pacts of these candidate technologies on automo-bile production methods.

Manufacturing Approach

The manufacturing approach for producingautos with PMC structural parts will be consider-ably different from the methods employed forbuilding conventional vehicles with steel bodies.Currently, many domestic automotive assemblyplants for steel vehicles are used for very littlebasic manufacturing. Instead, high-volume sheetsteel stamping plants, geographically located toservice several assembly plants, produce bodycomponents and small assemblies and ship themto the assembly pIants. The plants assemble thesheet metal components into an auto body struc-ture as presented in table 7-4 and figure 7-20aand b.

An auto body is a complex structure, and itsdesign is influenced by many demanding factors.At the present time, it appears that two systemscan be considered as possible processes to buildthe structural panels for PMC auto bodies.

One system consists of compression molding.Compression molded thin-walled panels are firstbonded together to form structural panels (seefigure 7-21) and then the structural panels, areassembled to form auto bodies. The other sys-tem involves HSRTM, in which preforms of fiberreinforcement are combined with foam cores,placed in a mold, and resin-injected to form large,three-dimensional structural panels (see figure 7-22). These panels are then assembled into autobodies. It is important to note that the filament-winding process is viewed as a limited construc-tion method largely due to the restricted com-plexity that is available with this technique.


Table 7-4.—Typical Body Construction System:Steel Panels

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

�

Build front structure—assemble aprons, radiator support,torque boxes, etc. to dash panelBuild front floor pan assemblyAssemble front and rear floor pan into underbody assemblyComplete spot welding of underbody assemblyTransfer underbody to skidBuild left-hand and right-hand bodyside assembliesMove underbody, bodyside assemblies, cowl top, wind-shield header, rear header, etc. into body buck line andtack-weld partsComplete spot welding of bodyBraze and fusion-weld sheet metal where requiredAssemble, tack-weld and respot roof panel to bodyAssemble front fenders to bodyAssemble closure panels (doors, hood, decklid) to bodyFinish exterior surface where required

SOURCE: P. Beardmore, C.F. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., “im-pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy: Composite Automobile Structure, ” contractor report for OTA,1987.

Therefore, it cannot now be considered as a com-petitive process for high-volume body structurefabrication.

Compression Molded Structural Bodies

Compression molded structural panels mightbe produced as presented in table 7-5 and fig-ure 7-21. Panel assemblies (side panels, floorpans, roof panels, etc.) are produced from innerand outer components. First, SMC sheet must bemanufactured and blanks of proper size andweight arranged in a large predetermined patternon the die surface. The panels are then moldedin high-tonnage presses. After molding, the partsare processed in a number of secondary opera-tions, bonded together, and transported to thebody assembly line.

Body construction commences with the floorpanel being placed in an assembly fixture. Sidepanel assemblies and mating components arebonded in place. Attachment points for the ex-terior body panels are drilled and the body struc-ture is painted prior to transporting to the trimoperations. (The body construction sequence isdescribed later, see table 7-9 and figure 7-24.)

High-Speed Resin Transfer MoldedStructural Bodies

bining the preform with foam cores, and inject-ing resin into the mold to infiltrate the preform.

First, dry glass preform reinforcements must befabricated. The preform may be composed of pri-marily randomly oriented glass fibers with addeddirectional glass fibers or woven glass cloth for

Figure 7-20(a).-Typical Assembly of Steel Underbody

Figure 7=20(b). -Typical Assembly of Underbody,Bodyside Assemblies, Etc. into the Completed

Steel Body Shell

HSRTM processing consists of three stages thatinvolve making a dry glass fiber preform, com-

SOURCE: P. Beardmore, C.F. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., “im-pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy: Composite Automobile Structure)” contractor report for OTA,1907.

Ch. 7—Case Study: Polymer Matrix Composites in Automobiles c 175

Figure 7-21 .—Typical Assembly of CompositeBodyside Panel by Adhesive Bonding of Inner and

Outer SMC Molded Panels

Cross sectionBodysideSheet-molded compound(two piece)

SOURCE: P. Beardmore, C.F. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg l Ford Motor Co., “im-pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy: Composite Automobile Structure,” contractor report for OTA,1987.

Figure 7-22.—Typical One. Piece Composite BodysidePanel With Foam Core Molded by High-Speed Resin

Transfer Molding

1 piecemolding

BodysideResin transfer molding(one piece)

SOURCE: P. Beardmore, C.F. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., ‘“im-pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy: Composite Automobile Structure,” contractor report for OTA,1987.

local reinforcement of high-stress areas. To beeconomically viable, preform fabrication must beaccomplished by a highly automated technique.The process sequence is described in table 7-6.

Second, foam core reinforcements must befabricated to obtain three-dimensional inserts,such as those used in rockers and pillars. Local

Table 7-5.—Compression Molded Structural Panels

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

�

Fabricate and prepare SMC chargeLoad charge into die and mold panelRemove components from molding machine (inner and out-er panels), trim and drill parts as requiredAttach reinforcements, latches, etc., to inner and outerpanels, with adhesive/rivetsApply mixed, two component adhesive to outer panelAssemble inner and outer panels, clamp and cureRemove excess adhesiveRemove body panel from fixture and transport to body con-struction line’

SOURCE: P. Beardmorej C.F. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., “lm-pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A Case—- Study: Composite Automobile Structure, ” contractor report for OTA,1987.

Table 7-6.—Preform Fabrication Sequence

● Apply random glass fibers over mandrel● Apply directional fibers (or woven cloth) for local rein-

forcement● Stabilize preform● Remove preform and transfer to trim station● Trim excess fibers● Transfer to HSRTM panel molding lineSOURCE: P. Beardmore, C.F. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., “im-

pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy: Composite Automobile Structure, ” contractor report for OTA,1987,

metal reinforcements and fasteners can be pre-positioned in the mold at this point during foamfabrication. The chemicals are subsequently in-troduced into the mold and the resulting reactionyields an accurately shaped foam part. The proc-ess sequence is described in table 7-7.

Third, the body structural panel is molded. Agel coat may be sprayed in both the lower andupper mold cavities to obtain a smoother surfaceon the finished part. Preforms, foam cores, andany necessary additional local reinforcementsand fasteners are placed in the respective lowerand upper mold cavities. In high production,

Table 7.7.—Foam Core Fabrication Sequence

● Clean mold and apply part release● InstalI reinforcements and basic fasteners● Close mold● Mix resins and inject into mold● Chemicals react to form part● Open mold● Unload part and place on trim fixture● Trim and drill excess material● Transport to HSRTM body panel IineSOURCE; P. Beardmore, C.F. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., “im-



these operations must be carried out robotically.The mold is closed and a vacuum may be ap-plied. The resin is injected, infiltrates the preform,and cures to form the body structural paneI. Themolding is then removed from the die andtrimmed. This process sequence is described intable 7-8 and illustrated in figure 7-22.

The final stage of body construction is the as-sembly of the individual panels, The underbodypanel is placed on the body construction line.Adhesive is applied to the side panels by robotsin the appropriate joint locations, the side panelsare mated to the underbody and clamped inplace, and the fasteners are added, Similarly, theremainder of the body structure is located andbonded to form a complete auto body. After cur-ing, the body is washed and dried, prior to trans-fer to trim operations. This process sequence isdescribed in table 7-9 and illustrated in figure7-23.

(Note that the body assembly sequence givenin table 7-9 is essentially common to both com-pression molding and HSRTM. This is only oneillustration of the assembly of a number of mold-ings to form the body—the number of moldingscould vary from 2 to 10 depending on the spe-cific design and manufacturing details,19)

lsBeardmOre, Johnson, and Strosberg, op. ci t . , footnote 1.

Table 7-8.—HSRTM Molded Structural Panels

Clean mold and apply part releaseSpray gel coat into mold (optional)Insert lower preforms and local woven fiber reinforcementsInsert specialized reinforcements and fastenersInsert foam coresInsert upper preforms and local woven fiber reinforcementsClose moldApply vacuum to mold (optional)Inject resin and allow chemicals to reactOpen moldRemove assembly and place in trim fixtureTrim and drill body panelTransport to body assembly line

SOURCE: P. Beardmore, C.F. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co.. “im-pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy: Composite Automobile Structure,” contractor report for OTA,1987.

Table 7.9.—Body Construction Assembly Sequence

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

�

Place underbody in body build lineApply adhesive to bond lines of side panels and cowlMate side panels to underbody, clamp and insert fastenersApply adhesive to cowl top assembly, lower back panel andmateApply adhesive to roof panel and mate to body side panelsTransfer body to final trim operationsAfter final trim, the painted exterior body panels are as-sembled to the auto body

SOURCE: P. Beardmore, C.F. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., “Im-pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy: Composite Automobile Structure,” contractor report for OTA,1987.

As noted, figure 7-23 is a schematic of a mul-tipiece PMC body. For comparison, a two-pieceHSRTM body construction is illustrated in figure7-24 to indicate the various levels of part integra-tion that might be achieved using PMCs. In boththese scenarios, the body shell would consist ofPMC structure with no metal parts except formolded-in steel reinforcements.

Assembly Operation Impact

In both the compression molding and HSRTMscenarios, there would be a considerable change

Figure 7.23.–Typical Body Construction Assemblyfor Composite Body Shell



Figure 7-24.–Typical Body Construction AssemblyUsing Two Major Composite Moldings

Table 7-10.—Effect of Composites onBody Complexity

Typical number ofVehicle design major parts in Typical number ofand material body structure assembly robots

A. Conventional welded steelbody structure. . . . . . . ., 250 to 350 300

B. Molded SMC body structure. 10 to 30 100C. High-speed resin transfer

molded composite/bodystructure . . . . . ... 2 to 10 50

Estimated part reduction(A less B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 to 320 200 to 250

Estimated part reduction(A less C) ,,, . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 to 340 250 to 280

SOURCE P Beardmore, C F Johnson, and G G Strosberg, Ford Motor Co , “Impact of NewMaterials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A Case Study Composite Automobile Struc-ture, contractor report for OTA, 1987

SOURCE: P. Beardmore, C.F. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., “im-pact of New Materials on Basic Manufacturing Industries, A CaseStudy Composite Automobile Structure,” contractor report for OTA,1987,

in the assembly operations for PMC vehiclesversus conventional steel vehicles. The numberof component parts in a typical body structure(body-in-white less hoods, doors, and decklids)varies with vehicle design and material, as pre-sented in table 7-IO.

The dramatic reduction in the number of partsto be assembled in a PMC vehicle would resultin a corresponding reduction in the number ofsubassembly operations and amount of subas-sembly equipment, as well as a reduction in therequired floorspace. For instance, robots used toproduce PMC assemblies can lay down an adhe-sive bead considerably faster than robots canspotweld a comparable distance on mating com-ponents. Therefore, it is anticipated that therewould be a considerable reduction in the num-ber of robots and complex welding fixtures re-quired.

Labor Impact

The design and engineering skills that wouldbe required to apply PMCs would be somewhat

different from the skills used for current metal ap-plications. A broader materials training curricu-lum would be required because the chemical,physical, and mechanical properties of PMCs dif-fer significantly from those of metals. These pro-grams are currently being developed at someuniversities but significant expansion would benecessary to ensure this trend on a broader scale.

The overall labor content for producing a PMCbody would similarly be reduced as numerousoperations would be eliminated. However, it isimportant to note that body assembly is not alabor-intensive segment of total assembly. Otherassembly operations that are more labor-intensive(e.g., trim) would not be significantly affected,Thus, the overall labor decrease due to PMCsmight be relatively small.

The level of skills involved in PMC assemblyline operations (e.g., bonding operations) is notexpected to be any more demanding than theskill level currently required for spotwelding con-ventional body assemblies. In either case, goodproduct design practice dictates that product as-sembly skill requirements be matched with theskill levels of the available workers to obtain aconsistently high-quality level.


IMPACT ON SUPPORT INDUSTRIESThe increased use of polymer composites could

strongly affect the existing automotive support in-dustries as well as promote the development ofnew ones.

Material Suppliers, Molders, andFabricators

PMC vehicle body structures of the future,whether built with compression-molded or HSRTMparts, are expected to be designed with compo-nents integrated into modular subassemblies.Therefore, these units will be of considerable sizeand are not conducive to long-range shipping.Manufacturing on site in a dedicated plant formolding body construction and assembly oper-ations, just prior to trim and final assembly of thevehicle, will become necessary.

PMC automobile production, in relatively highvolumes, will require additional qualified suppliercapacity. The extent of these requirements willbe dependent on the economic attractivenessand incentives for developing in-house capacityby the automotive manufacturers. Fortunately,these demands are likely to be evolutionary, inthat the automotive industry would undoubtedlycommence with low annual volume (10,000 to60,000) PMC body production units.20 When(and if) higher volume production of PMC bod-ies is planned, additional supplier capacity canbe put in place as a result of supplier/manufac-turer cooperation throughout the normal leadtime (4 to 6 years) for the planning, design, andrelease of a new vehicle to manufacturing.21

Although compression molding is the most ma-ture of the evolving PMC production techniques,a major conversion to SMC for body structureswould require a substantial increase in resin andreinforcement output, mold-building capacity,molding machine construction, component mold-ing, subassembly facilities, adhesives, and qual-ity control tools, etc.

If the HSRTM processing concept is used, resinand reinforcement suppliers would need to sub-

Zolbid .

ZI Ibid.

stantially expand their output (as in the case ofcompression molding) and perhaps develop newproducts to meet the unique demands of theprocess. Tooling is similar in construction to thatused in injection molding, and therefore manu-facturers of this type of tooling would likely ex-pand to fill the need. If inexpensive electroformedmolds, which consist of 0.25 inch of electroplatednickel facing on a filled epoxy backing (usedtoday for low-pressure or vacuum-assisted mold-ing) become feasible, this phase of the industrywould have to be developed and expanded. Be-cause molding pressures for this process are low,high-tonnage hydraulic presses would not beneeded. However, companies specializing inautomation and resin handling equipment wouldplay an increased role.

If PMC structures were suddenly implemented,there would bean expected shortfall of qualifiedmolders and fabricators regardless of the proc-ess chosen. It is more likely, however, that im-plementation would be evolutionary, and thesupply base would be addressed during the PMCvehicle planning and design stage. To enlarge thesupply base, the auto industry is currently work-ing with, and encouraging, qualified vendors toexpand and/or diversify, as required, to supportproduct plans. Additionally, with growth in PMCdemand, new suppliers would be expected to be-come qualified.

Current suppliers may also form joint venturesand/or make acquisitions to expand capabilitiesduring the phase-in period of PMC structures.Along with the need to expand materials supplyand facilities, there is the significant need to de-velop and retrain qualified personnel to providesupport for both supplier and automotive indus-try operations.

The current molding capacity for SMC devotedto the automotive industry is of the order of 500million to 750 million pounds annually.22 Figure7-25 projects the additional volume of PMCs thatwould be needed as a function of producing ahigh volume of autos with a high content of com-posites. The data are based on a substitution for

22 lbid.

Ch. 7—Case Study: Polymer Matrix Composites in Automobiles 179

Figure 7-25.—Effect of Composite Use on Steel Usein Automobiles

Decrease in steel usage (106 tons)

x

o 1 2 3

Composite usage (106 tons)

Increase in composites usage and associated decrease insteel usage for various production volumes of composite-intensive vehicles. Assumes 1,000 lb. of steel is replaced by650 lb. of composites in a typical vehicle weighing 2,700 lb.that contains 1,600 lb. of steel.Two million composite-intensive vehicles per year causes aloss of one million tons of steel, which is roughly 12 percentof steel usage in automobiles, see table 7-11.


a typical vehicle weighing 2,700 pounds and con-taining 1,600 pounds of steel. Of this 1,600 poundsof steel, 1,000 pounds of steel have been replacedby 650 pounds of PMCs. It is evident that therewouId be a relatively massive incremental amountof PMCs needed for even 1 million vehicles peryear–about 300,000 tons (650 million pounds);i.e., roughly a doubling of current SMC capac-ity.23 Each additional million vehicles would re-quire the same increase, creating (ultimately) anenormous new industry.

Steel Industry

The implementation of PMCs in automobileswould clearly have an impact on the steel indus-try. As with the plastics industry, this impactwould be volume-dependent. In the initial stages,with volumes in the range of 10,000 to 60,000

231 bid.

vehicles per year, there would be only a mini-mal effect-a small loss in steel tonnage, someexcess press capacity, and some additional stamp-ing die building capacity. 24 The loss of steel ton-nage from the steel mills would cause additionalproblems for this already beleaguered segmentof industry. Both captive and/or supplier stamp-ing plants would have idle capacity. Stamping diebuilders would lose orders, unless they could alsobuild molds for plastics. However, these poten-tial problems for the steel industry would beevolutionary and would take several years to oc-cur after the successful introduction of vehiclesusing this technology.

Figure 7-25 can be used to place this potentialimpact in perspective. The decrease in steel useas a function of increasing production volume ofcars with a high PMC content would become sig-nificant only at intermediate volume levels. Thedata reproduced in table 7-11 show that at vol-umes of up to 500,000 PMC vehicles per year,automotive use of steel would drop only about250,000 tons (or 3 percent) per year.25 Since mo-tor vehicle manufacturing uses about 15 percentof all steel consumption in the U.S.,26 steel con-sumption would drop 0.45 percent for volumesof 500,000 PMC vehicles per year. Major steelproduction decreases would result only from amajor change in PMC vehicle volume—e.g., 2million vehicles or more.27

zqlbid.zslf a vehicle is specifically designed for PMCS instead of steel,

and, for instance, the volume is on the order of 500,000 units, theimpact would be greater.

26 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis,

The Detailed Input-Output Structure of the U.S. Economy, 1977,vol. 1, Washington, DC, 1984.

z7Beardmore, johnson, and Strosberg, op. cit.

Table 7-11.—Automotive Steel Usage(based on annual volume of 107 vehicles)

Production volume of Steel usagecomposite-intensive vehicles (106) tons

o 850,000 7.975

500,000 7.755,000,000 5.5

10,000,000 3.0SOURCE: P. Beardmore, C.F, Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, Ford Motor Co., “Im-



It is also recognized that the steel industry andits suppliers are aggressively seeking methods toreduce costs and provide a wider range of steels.This healthy economic competition between steeland PMCs will have an effect on the timing ofPMC auto introductions and the volumes to beproduced. World competition in the steel indus-try is leading to the availability of a wider rangeof high-strength steels with improved quality, re-sulting in an increase in productivity for the enduser. The balance between improved economicfactors for steel use and the rate of improvementof PMCs processing will dictate the use, rate ofgrowth, and timing of the introduction of PMCvehicles.

Repair Service Requirements

Another support industry of importance is thePMC repair service required to repair vehicledamage caused in accidents, etc. During the de-sign process, automobile engineers will designcomponents and body parts to simplify fieldrepairs. For repair of major damage, large replace-ment components or modules will have to besupplied. At the present time, the comparativeexpense of repairing PMC structures relative tosteel is unclear. Replacement parts or sections willtend to be more expensive. However, low-energycollisions are expected to result in less damageto the vehicle. Thus, the overall repair costsacross a broad spectrum of vehicles and damagelevels are not anticipated to be any higher thancurrent levels.

Exterior SMC body panel repair procedures arealready in existence at automotive dealershipsand independent repair shops specializing infiberglass repairs. With additional PMC use, it isexpected that the number of these repair serv-ice facilities will increase. To repair the PMCstructure, dealers and independent repair centerswill need new repair procedures and repair ma-terials. The development of the appropriate re-pair procedures will be contained well within thetime frame of PMC vehicle introduction. Therewill be new business opportunities to establishadditional independent shops.

As with any new vehicle design, PMC repairprocedures must be fully developed and stand-

ardized, along with the additional training of re-pair personnel. This training will require skilllevels equivalent to those required for steel repair.

PMC Vehicle/Component Recycling

The recycling industry is another support in-dustry that will undergo significant change in thelonger term if PMC vehicles become a significantportion of the volume of scrapped vehicles. Cur-rent steel vehicle recycling techniques (shreddersand magnetic separators) will not be applicable,and cost-effective recycling methods will need tobe developed exclusively for PMCs. Low volumesof scrap PMC vehicles will have minimal effect,but the problems will increase as the volumereaches a significant level. This level is estimatedto be in the range of 20 percent or more of thetotal vehicles to be salvaged .28

Plastics must be segregated into types prior torecycling. Currently, only clean, unreinforcedthermoplastic materials can readily be reclaimed,but the techniques are somewhat inadequate andtend to be very expensive. Fortunately, the calo-rific value of many thermoplastics approachesthat of fuel oil. Some waste-incinerating plantsnow operate with various types of plastics as fuel.One developing use for plastic waste involvespulverizing plastics and using their calorific valueas a partial substitute for fuel oil in cement kilns.Some plastics in automobiles can be recycled bymelt recovery, pyrolysis, and hydrolysis, but cost-effective methods are not yet in place.

Thermoset plastic components, such as SMCpanels and other PMC body components, cur-rently cannot easily be reclaimed because of theirrelatively infusible state and low resin content.Grinding, followed by reuse in less demandingapplications such as roadfill or building materi-als, is possible, but is not currently economical.Consequently, these kinds of parts are used aslandfill or are incinerated. Again, at low volumes,these recycling procedures are acceptable, butthey would not be viable at high scrap rates.

Without the advent of some unforeseen recy-cling procedures, it appears likely that incinera-tion will have to be the major process for the fu-

*81 bid.


ture. The viability of incineration will either have more favorable economics or some penalty willto be improved by more efficient techniques for likely have to be absorbed by the product.

POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONSAny major potential changes in automotive in-

dustrial practice, such as the large-scale substi-tution of a new structural material, must take intoconsideration not only current regulations butalso future regulations that may already be un-der consideration or that may be initiated be-cause of the potential changes in industrial prac-tice. One example is the increased safety (crash-resistance) requirements already under activeconsideration. Another is the potential increasesin CAFE standards for the 1990s. Although thefollowing discussion of such potential regulationsis not comprehensive, it serves to illustrate theimportance of such considerations in introduc-ing major materials changes to the automotiveindustry.

Health Safeguards

The introduction of fiber-reinforced plastics insignificant volumes into the automotive work-place may raise health and environment con-cerns. Any fibers in very fine form have the po-tential to create lung and skin problems, andalthough glass fibers may be among the more in-ert types of fiber, there must still be adequateprecautions taken in handling these fibers.

Currently, glass fibers are widely used in vari-ous industries such as molding industries, boatbuilding, and home construction; extension tothe automotive industry would probably not re-quire development of safeguards other than thoseused within those existing industries.

However, the widespread nature of the auto-motive business would undoubtedly raise aware-ness of potential health risks and could precipi-tate more stringent requirements for the workplace.Although such additional precautions may notpose a technological problem, the extent of theregulations could have a significant effect on theeconomic viability of the use of composites.

Similarly, the same problems could arise withthe resin matrix materials of these PMCs. It is notclear which specific resin materials will be dom-inant for PMCs use, but there is a widespreadconcern regarding all chemicals in the workplaceand in the environment.

There are already strong regulations concern-ing chemical use and handling, but again, thesheer magnitude of the automotive industry islikely to bring such requirements to the forefrontof interest and may result in additional legisla-tion. This could result in limitation of the typesof resins used and implementation of additionalsafeguards. The impact is less likely to preventimplementation of PMCs technology than it is toaffect the economic viability and timing of theintroduction of this technology.

Recyclability

The current recycling of scrap automobiles isa major industry. Sophisticated techniques havebeen developed for separating the various ma-terials, and cost-effective recycling procedures arean integral part of the total automotive scene. Be-cause steel constitutes 60 percent (by weight) ofa current automobile, the recycling of steel is themajor portion of the recycling industry. Recyclingof PMCs is a radically different proposition, anduse of these materials will necessitate develop-ment of new industrial recycling processes if largevolumes are manufactured.

If PMCs are only applied in low-volume spe-cialty vehicles, however, current recycling tech-niques of landfill and incineration will probablybe adequate.

The potential for large numbers of composite-intensive vehicles to be scrapped will undoubt-edly raise the issue of disposal to the nationalspotlight. One concern is that there would be adisposal problem due to a lack of economic in-

.—


centives to recycle. Consequently, this problemmay need to be addressed by legislation beforewidespread use of these materials is permitted.The result of such legislation could be the com-mitment of resources at an early stage of devel-opment with payback as part of the. overall costof PMC development.

Crash Regulations

There are regulations in existence, and othersproposed, that set or would set impact-survivalcriteria in frontal impacts, side crash tests, andvehicle-to-vehicle impacts. Various scenarios havebeen proposed for making these standards morestringent (e.g., raising frontal-impact criteria from30 to 35 miles per hour, and possibly higher).

Basic experience to date in crash-energy man-agement has primarily been with steel vehiclesand, consequently, the specific wording of theregulations is based on the characteristics of thesevehicles. Vehicles consisting largely of PMC ma-terials absorb energy by significantly differentmechanisms, and the details of impact would bevery different from those of steel vehicles, eventhough the objective of occupant protectionwould be the same.

Thus, new regulations in this area could con-tain provisions that would preclude the use ofPMCs because of the lack of information. For in-stance, if a requirement were promulgated thatstated no fracture of a major body structure shalloccur during a certain impact, PMCs would beexcluded because, unlike steels, internal fractureof the PMCs is a critical part of energy absorp-tion. Thus, detailed wording of crash regulationsbased on steel experience could inadvertentlyjeopardize the potential use of PMC structuralmaterials.

Fuel Economy Standards

Just as some regulations might produce deter-rents to PMCs use, others might promote devel-opment and use. If CAFE requirements were drasti-cally increased, there would be a limited numberof options for increasing fuel efficiency-down-sizing, increased power train efficiency, andweight reduction. In terms of weight reduction,aluminum alloys and PMCs would represent per-haps the major options. Thus, legislation requir-ing a marked increase in fuel economy mighttend to promote the development and use ofPMCs, providing that functional requirements,manufacturing feasibility, and overall economicfactors are proven.

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AREAS

Although years of development efforts have ad-vanced structural composites so that they con-stitute a significant material for use in the avia-tion and aerospace industries, the cost-effectiveuse of these materials in the automotive indus-try requires considerable additional developmen-tal work in the following areas.

Compression Molding

Improvements in SMC technology are requiredin the areas of reduced cycle times, reproduci-bility of physical properties and material handle-ability. A major improvement would be a signif-icant reduction in manufacturing cycle time.Current objectives are to cut the conventionaltime from 2 to 3 minutes to 1 minute or less. De-

velopment of materials requiring less flow toachieve optimum physical properties would per-mit more reproducible moldings to be made.Other potential technology improvements forSMC include a reduction in the aging time for ma-terial prior to molding, an internal mold releasein the material, an improved cutting operationto prepare a loading charge for the molding ma-chine, automated loading and unloading of mold-ing machines, and improved dimensional con-trol of final parts.

High-Speed Resin Transfer Molding

There are two critical segments of this processthat require major developments to achieve via-bility. One is reduction in manufacturing cycle


time, and new, faster curing resins currently un-der development should make significant con-tributions in this area. The other is developmentof automated preform technology (foam core de-velopment and subassembly), which is critical toachieving cost-effectiveness. This is perhaps thearea requiring major innovation and invention,but it has yet to be perceived by the existing fi-ber and fiber-manipulation industry to be a ma-jor area for development.

Fiber Technology

There are three major areas in fiber technol-ogy that must be optimized to promote fiber usein high-production industries: 1 ) improved phys-ical properties of the composite, 2) improved fi-ber handling and placement techniques, and 3)improved high-volume production techniquesproviding fibers at lower cost. Superior physicalproperties would result from improved sizings (fi-ber coatings) to reduce fiber damage during proc-essing and provide improved mechanical prop-erties in the finished components. Fiber-handlingequipment permitting high-speed, precise fiberplacement with minimal effect on fiber proper-ties is a vital requirement for the developmentof stable, three-dimensional preforms. Cost mini-mization is a critical factor in using glass fibersbut also should be considered from the viewpointof generating other fibers (e.g., carbon fibers) atcosts amenable to mass-production use.

Joining

Two key areas dominate the category of join-ing technology. First, adhesives and mechanicalfasteners must be tailored for PMC construction,to develop the necessary combination of produc-tion rate and mechanical reliability. Second, there

is a need for the development of design criteriaand design methodologies for adhesive joints.Neither of these areas have been systemically de-veloped for a mass-production industry and fargreater attention must be paid to joining materi-als and to methods for alleviating any problemsin this element of the overall PMCs technology.

General Technology Requirements

Design methodologies for use with PMCs tocover all aspects of vehicle requirements mustbe developed to a degree comparable to currentsteel knowledge. The ability to tailor PMCs forspecific requirements must be integrated intosuch design guides, and this makes the task morecomplex than the equivalent guidelines for iso-tropic materials (e.g., metals). Manufacturingknowledge and experience, which provide con-straints for the design process, must be fully doc-umented to optimize product quality, reliability,and cost-effectiveness, The degree of componentintegration must be a key factor in determiningmanufacturing rates, and this interdependenceof design and manufacturing will evolve only overa protracted time period. This buildup of experi-ence will be the key factor in resolving overalleconomic factors for the production of compos-ite vehicles.

Standards

The complexity of PMC materials relative tometals will require the development of standardtesting procedures and material specifications asis discussed in chapter 5. The rapid proliferationof materials in the PMC arena will not permit fi-nal establishment of these generic standards un-til PMC technology matures. It is likely that spe-cific corporate standards will be used in theinterim prior to professional society actions.

SUMMARYThe extension of PMCs use to automotive struc- ogies. There is abundant laboratory evidence and

tures will require an expanded knowledge of the some limited vehicle evidence that strongly in-design parameters for these materials, together dicates that glass fiber-reinforced PMCs are ca-with major innovations in fabrication technol- pable of meeting the functional requirements of


the most highly loaded automotive structures.There are, however, sufficient uncertainties (e.g.,long-term environmental effects, complex crashbehavior) that applications will be developedslowly until adequate confidence is gained. Never-theless, it seems inevitable that the functionalquestions will be answered, and it only remainsto be seen how soon.

perhaps the most imperative requirement is thecost-effective development of fabrication tech-niques. There will be a prerequisite to widespreaduse of PMCs in automotive structures. High-vol-ume, less-stringent performance components canbe manufactured by variations of compressionmolding techniques. it is the high-volume, high-performance manufacturing technology that needsdevelopment, and the HSRTM process appearsto be a sleeping fabrication giant with the poten-tial of developing into just such a process.

All the elements for resolving the rapid, high-performance issue are scattered around the some-what fragmented PMCs industry. It will requirethe appropriate combination of fiber manufac-turers, resin technologists, fabrication specialists,and industrial end users to encourage the nec-essary developments.

The advent of composite-intensive vehicles willbe evolutionary. The most likely scenario wouldbe pilot programs of large PMC substructures asinitial developments to evaluate these materialsrealistically in field experience. This would be fol-lowed by low annual production volumes (20,000to 60,000 units) of a composite-intensive vehiclethat would achieve the extensive manufacturingexperience vital to the determination of realisticfabrication guidelines and true economics.29 The

29 lbid ,

data derived from such introduction would de-termine the potential for high-volume production.

Currently, the industry infrastructure is not inplace for PMC-intensive vehicles. In addition, thesupply base could presently respond to only low-volume production of PMC vehicles. Neither ofthese situations is a major restriction in that theanticipated long development time would per-mit the appropriate changes to occur over a pro-tracted period. Rather, the initial decisions tomake the necessary changes and (substantial) fi-nancial commitments will have to be based onsignificant evidence that PMC vehicles are via-ble economically and will offer customer benefits.

irrespective of the scenario for the eventual in-troduction of PMC vehicles, there are probablysome general conclusions that can be drawn rela-tive to the impact of these materials. PMC appli-cations are unlikely to have a large effect on thesize of the labor force because the major changesare not in labor-intensive areas of vehicle manu-facture and assembly. Likewise, the necessaryskill levels for both the fabrication of the PMCparts and assembly of the body should not be sig-nificantly changed. Engineering know-how wouldbe very different, but the needed skill levelswould be similar to those already in place.

Perhaps the largest effect would be on the sup-ply industries, which would need to implementproduction of PMCs. This would involve both achange in technology for many current suppliers,together with the development of a new supplybase. The steel industry would experience a cor-responding decrease in output, but the decreasewould only be of major proportion if PMC vehi-cles became a significant proportion of total ve-hicle output. The repair and recycling industrieswould similarly undergo a major change to ac-commodate the radical change in the vehicle ma-terials.

Chapter 8

Industrial Criteria for Investment

CONTENTS

F i n d i n g s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n t r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Characterization Of Advanced Materials Suppliers and

Construction lndustry .. .. .. Automotive Industry - . . . . ...... . .....’Aerospace Industry . . . . . . . . ....... .Biomedical lndustry. ... .. .

lndustrial Decision Criteria for R&D and Production. .R&D Investment Criteria .. ... .. .. . .....Production Investment Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Barriers to Commercialization of Advanced Materials.Concern of Defense-Oriented Suppliers and Users.Concerns Commercial Market-Oriented Suppliers

Appendix 8-1: Organizations interviewed. . . . . . . . . . .

Figure,Figure No.8-1. Relative Importance of Cost and Performance in

Advanced Materials User Industries.. .., . . . . .

TableTable No.8-1. Industry Investment Decision Criteria . . . . . . . . . .

Page

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188Users. . . . . . . . . . ● .. ...188. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . * . . 194. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195and Users . ...........196. .

,.

.,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

Page

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Page

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Chapter 8

Industrial Criteria for Investment

FINDINGS

Aggressive industry investment in the produc-tion and use of advanced materials will be onekey to the future competitiveness of these indus-tries. Based on extensive interviews, OTA findsthat the investment criteria used by advanced ma-terials companies vary depending on whetherthey are suppliers or users, whether the intendedmarkets are military or commercial, and whetherthe end use emphasizes high performance or lowcost .

Suppliers of advanced structural materials tendto be technology-driven. They are focused pri-marily on the superior technical performance ofadvanced materials and are looking for both mil-itary and commercial applications. They also tendto take a long-term view, basing their R&D in-vestment decisions on qualitative assessments ofthe technical potential of advanced materials.

On the other hand, users tend to be market-driven. They focus primarily on short-term mar-ket requirements, and they expect to recovertheir investments within 3 to 5 years.

Frequently, suppliers and users operate in bothdefense and commercial markets. However, theinvestment criteria employed in the two cases arevery different. Defense contractors are able totake a longer term perspective because they areable to charge much of their capital equipmentexpenses to the government, and because the de-fense market for the materials and structures isrelatively well-defined. Companies supplyingcommercial markets, on the other hand, mustbear the full costs of their production investmentsand face uncertain returns. Their outlook is there-fore necessarily shorter term. This difference inmarket perspective has hampered the transfer ofdefense-oriented materials technology to com-mercial users, and it underlines the importanceof well-defined markets as a motivating force forindustry investments in advanced materials.

The many applications of advanced structuralmaterials do not all have the same cost and per-

formance requirements. Accordingly, the invest-ment criteria of user companies specializing indifferent product areas are different. In general,barriers to investment are highest in cost-sensitiveareas such as construction and automobiles,where expensive new materials must competewith cheap, well-established, conventional ma-terials. Barriers are lowest in applications that cantolerate high materials and fabrication costs, suchas medical implants and aircraft.

The process of developing a new structural ma-terial and manufacturing products from it is veryexpensive, and may take 10 to 20 years. Most po-tential users require a payback period not longerthan 5 years, and an initial sales volume of $5million to $50 million per year to justify produc-tion investments. In general, commercial endusers do not perceive that these criteria will bemet by advanced structural materials, particularlyin cost-sensitive applications. OTA agrees thatthese expectations are probably correct; solutionto the remaining technical and economic prob-lems will take longer than 5 years. The high riskassociated with this market uncertainty is the big-gest single barrier to commercial production.

The existence of well-defined markets for newstructural materials appears to be a necessary butnot sufficient condition to stimulate substantialinvestments by commercial end users. OTA’s in-dustrial respondents identified a number of ad-ditional barriers to commercialization that arelikely to persist as these technologies and mar-kets mature:

●

●

●

●

●

export controls;lack of trained technical personnel;tax law changes in 1986, including theremoval of investment tax credits and re-duced depreciation allowances;liability concerns and costs;uncertainties associated with governmentprocurement practices, particularly defenseregulations and policies;

187

7 5 - 7 9 2 0 - 8 8 - 5


● time and associated costs of certification test- inability to obtain a defensible proprietarying for advanced materials; and position.

● threat of technological obsolescence and the

INTRODUCTIONWhen a company considers the introduction

of a new material into a product, it is likely topay more attention to the business climate andopportunities for profit than to the specific ma-terial used. Moreover, most of the governmentpolicies that affect the business climate in whichsuch decisions are made are blind to any particu-lar material or technology.

In this chapter, therefore, a different approachis taken to the subject of advanced structural ma-terials. Instead of focusing on different types ofmaterials, as done in previous chapters, this chap-ter emphasizes a spectrum of end uses—biomedi-cal, aerospace, automotive, and construction—that span a range of material requirements fromhigh performance to low cost. This emphasishighlights the various factors that affect a com-pany’s decision to introduce a new material inthese end uses.

The discussion presented here represents a dis-tillation of extensive interviews conducted forOTA with over 75 organizations involved in thesupply and use of advanced structural materials. ’These interviews were supplemented with a work-shop held at OTA on December 15 and 16, 1986.The participating organizations, including com-panies, government agencies, and trade organiza-tions, are listed in appendix 8-1. What emergesis a portrait of the factors considered most im-portant in a company’s decision to invest in ad-vanced materials research, development, andproduction. This information is also used to in-form the policy discussion in chapter 12.

‘Technology Management Associates, “Industrial Criteria for In-vestment Decisions in R&D and Production Facilities, ” a contrac-tor report for OTA, January 1986.

CHARACTERIZATION OF ADVANCED MATERIALSSUPPLIERS AND USERS

Private sector interest in advanced materials ispervasive, and the list of key companies spansa wide variety of industries. Advanced materialssuppliers include companies with core businessesin chemicals, commodity materials, and defense,whereas the advanced materials users includecompanies in construction, automotive, aero-space, and biomedical industries. This diversityis the resuIt of three major factors:

1.

2.

broad applicability of advanced structuralmaterials to military and commercial prod-ucts due to their superior performance char-acteristics and potential for cost savings;opportunities for diversification perceived bythose domestic industries facing mature ordeclining markets and foreign competition;and

3. existence of specific government programs—especially defense programs—that have cre-ated a market for advanced materials.

All of the advanced materials supplier com-panies interviewed considered themselves tobe technically sophisticated and motivated bythe performance characteristics of advancedstructural materials. Even commodity materialscompanies make a point of saying they address“technology development for our customers” ordescribe themselves as “engineered materialscompanies. ” A sense that advanced structuralmaterials is the “place to be” dispels the lack ofhard economic justification for R&D and com-mercialization investments.

Ch. 8—Industrial Criteria for Investment “ 189

As one chemical industry executive put it:

It is not unusual in this business–for that mat-ter in other similar kinds of materials technologybusinesses–for companies to say, “if the marketlooks like a $10 billion market 10 years from now,then we are willing to invest in that market with-out being able to do an accurate assessment ofthe potential return. ” We think that we can playtechnologically—we are a technical-based com-pany. So we are headed in that direction. If themarket promises to be big enough, we want toplay.

Advanced materials user companies in the con-struction, automotive, aerospace, and biomedi-cal industries are focused on market needs andcost competitiveness. They put a major empha-sis on the use of advanced structural materialsto enhance market acceptance of their final prod-ucts. However, enhanced material performancehas value for them only if the potential marketplaces a premium on performance. Otherwise,new structures and processes must demonstratecomparable performance with lower costs com-pared with the materials in current use.

As portrayed conceptually in figure 8-1, costand performance factors differ in importanceamong the various industry segments involved.In commercial aerospace, automotive, and con-struction markets, for instance, acquisition costsand operating expenses are the major purchasecriteria, with a progressively lower premiumplaced on high material performance. In militaryaerospace and biomedical markets, on the otherhand, functional capabilities and performancecharacteristics are the primary purchase criteria.

The sales potential of advanced materials isgreatest in the markets in the center of figure 8-1;e.g., automobiles, and commercial aircraft. Con-struction materials are used in high volume, butmust have a low cost; biomedical materials canhave high allowable costs, but are used in rela-tively low volume. Characteristics of these poten-tial markets for advanced materials are describedbelow.

Construction Industry

The construction industry is extremely frag-mented, being made up of many small compa-nies, both suppliers and users. In general, the

Figure 8-1.– Relative Importance of Cost andPerformance In Advanced Material User Industries

construction~ I Automotive

Emphasis I Commercialoncost

aerospaceI Militaryi aerospaceII BiomedicalI

-—–– - Emphasis on performance - –-–+Barriers to the use of advanced materials decrease from upperleft to lower right.

SOURCE: Technology Management Associates, “Industrial Criteria for Invest-ment Decisions in R&D and Production Facilities,” a contractor reportfor OTA, January 1986.

industry’s products are low-cost, high-volumecommodities and, except for specialty applica-tions, introduction of new, more expensive prod-ucts is extremely difficult.

The construction industry is mature and con-servative in nature. Public safety requires longdemonstration periods before the adoption ofnew approaches, and the industry itself has verylittle to do with the performance specifications.In general, the industry builds a structure thatothers have specified, to codes and regulationsthat change very slowly. Furthermore, the retrain-ing of the labor force required to implement newmaterials and processes may be extensive. There-fore, construction companies are generally notinnovative or R&D oriented, and new product de-velopments are relatively rare.

To complicate matters, the current business cli-mate is generally depressed. Construction mate-rials companies have been losing money for sev-eral years, and they are taking defensive actionsto protect existing markets. In explaining theirplight, industry respondents cited a “foreign in-vasion” of “low-cost imports. ” Foreign owner-

ship of U.S. construction materials companies isestimated by industry executives to be 40 to 50percent of the entire U.S. construction materialsindustry—up from 3 percent 15 years ago. For-eign companies are attracted by the current re-structuring of U.S. industry, the strong U.S. tech-nical base, and the very favorable currencyexchange rates.

One promising approach to the use of new ma-terials in construction is to use them in repair,


maintenance, and rehabilitation of existing struc-tures. In this way, the materials’ performance canbe evaluated over time without relying on themto sustain the fundamental integrity of the struc-ture. By this means, innovative materials may be-come integrated into the system and may be con-sidered in the development of new constructioncodes in the future.

Automotive Industry

The automotive industry companies–a fewlarge automobile manufacturers and a large num-ber of smaller component fabricators and sup-pliers–are faced with severe price competition.Although greater fuel economy has receded asa driving force for introducing new materials intoautomobiles, there is continuing interest in po-tential cost savings from the use of advancedstructural materials through both part consolida-tion and reduced tooling costs.

The industry focuses on R&D that could becommercialized within 5 years; internally fundedlong-term research programs involving advancedceramics and composites have been greatly re-duced or postponed. For example, industry ex-ecutives gave the following reasons for their com-panies having abandoned research on ceramicgas

●

●

●

●

turbine engines:

“limited fuel economy potential when com-pared to other available power plants”;"multifuel possibilities not an asset in the do-mestic market”;“no packaging or design flexibility benefits”;and“significant technical challenges—not avail-able within the 1990 time frame. ”

Most of the current R&D is focused on near-term reductions of component costs and produc-tion expenses. Some of those cost reductions in-volve limited replacement of metal componentsin gasoline engines with ceramic materials. How-ever, as one respondent said:

Some components produced from advancedmaterials offer little advantage over conventionalmetal technology, and the production decisionwould depend on cost competitiveness.

The automotive industry is conservative in theapplication of advanced materials technology.From the perspective of advanced materials sup-pliers, the industry appears interested only in in-cremental improvements. As one supplier noted:

When you go to apply a new material to theautomobile design problem, the characteristic re-sponse is, “We made it in steel. Use the samediagram and give us a new material that we canmake into the same equipment and then we’llbuy your prod uct.” They don’t approach the cardesign from the systems design view as an in-tegrated whole.

Automotive manufacturers require extensivestatic and fleet testing of new components anda minimum lead time of 3 to 5 years to introduceproduct innovations. However, it was the viewof several materials supplier executives that givena change in attitude, advanced materials couldbe rapidly adopted by the industry. They notedthat in Japan, the use of ceramic fiber-reinforcedpistons for small diesel engines progressed in only3 years from limited production of a specializedToyota vehicle to use in all diesel engines of thatsize.

Most materials development for automotive ap-plications is being conducted outside of the threemajor automakers, by both material and compo-nent suppliers—companies that manufacturevalves, pistons, and other automotive compo-nents. One industry spokesman stated that:

You will find that a lot of the innovation anda lot of the new design work and new materialswork is being done outside of the automobilebuilders, who are becoming assemblers of com-ponents. There is a significant amount of workgoing on.

Aerospace Industry

Like the automotive industry, the aerospace in-dustry is composed of relatively few large com-panies that manufacture aircraft, plus manysmaller companies that manufacture and supplycomponents. The military market for high-per-formance aircraft has driven the developmentand application of advanced materials in theaerospace industry. To a limited degree, use ofthese materials also carries over into the manu-facture of commercial transport aircraft. For in-

Ch. 8—Industrial Criteria for Investment “ 191

stance, composite materials are used in nonstruc-tural components, such as control surfaces,fairings, and trailing edge panels; also, the Euro-pean consortium Airbus uses composites in pri-mary structural components of its commercialtransports, including both vertical and horizon-tal stabilizers (tail assembly).

Commercial aircraft manufacturers, like auto-mobile manufacturers, are facing stiff competi-tion and are currently seeking to minimize thecost of their commercial products. Use of com-posite structures offers the potential for reducedaircraft weight and hence lower fuel costs. How-ever, the recent decline in the price of fuel hasreduced the attractiveness of composites. The in-dustry attitude toward advanced structural ma-terials R&D and production is reflected in thiscomment from an aerospace company manager:

During the era of the Boeing 767, compositematerials were worth $300 per pound (in fuel sav-ings over the life of the aircraft); today they areworth $75 per pound (because of lower fuelprices).

For several years there have been intensive ef-forts to develop and certify general aviation air-craft that make extensive use of advanced com-posites. Because these aircraft are designed fromthe start with composite materials and fabrica-tion processes in mind, the composite airframeis likely to be cheaper than a comparable metalairframe. According to one manufacturer in thegeneral aviation market:

The cost has been driven higher than privateusers can afford to pay for airplanes. We thinkthat the use of composites can help us get thosecosts down.

Biomedical Industry

R&D on biomedical applications of advancedstructural materials is conducted primarily i n or-thopedics and dentistry. Companies in this indus-try make specialty products to solve medical orlaboratory problems. Technical superiority or in-novation confers an important competitive ad-vantage and is the primary motivation for con-tinued R&D. Fourteen of the fifteen companiesinterviewed currently have active R&D programsthat are strongly product-oriented and market-driven.

In the dental and orthopedic segments, reduc-tion of the cost of components or of product fabri-cation are not particularly important motivationsfor R&D because these costs are usually passedon to the customer. Furthermore, the actual costof the product is small compared to the cost forthe professional services (medical and dental fees)required to install the product.

in contrast to the automotive and constructionindustries, which are static or declining, the ad-vanced biomedical materials industry is rapidlyexpanding. Advances in materials as well as ad-vances in basic medical and dental research makethis a rapidly moving field, so that products tendto last only a few years, This fuels the competi-tive pressure to invest in additional R&D.

R&D efforts are focused primarily on materialevaluation, certification testing, and fabricationtechnology development. Most companies donot develop new materials. Rather, materials orig-inate outside the biomedical industry —e.g., fromaerospace materials suppliers. However, becausethe quantity of materials used in dental and or-thopedic applications is so small, many such sup-pliers have not cultivated the biomedical market.

INDUSTRIAL DECISION CRITERIA FOR R&D AND PRODUCTIONThe criteria used by industry sources inter- vanced materials and look for applications. Users

viewed by OTA fall into two groups, depending tend to be market—driven—they focus primar-on whether the respondents represent suppliers ily on market requirements.or users. Suppliers of advanced structural mate-rials tend to be technology driven—they focus pri- There are two factors, however, that tend tomarily on superior technical performance of ad- blur this distinction. First, advanced materials sup-


pliers are often supported partially or wholly bymilitary contracts, and thus they have the luxuryof focusing on high-performance materials for thelong term. Second, R&D expenditures are typi-cally an order of magnitude less than productionexpenditures; thus, while suppliers spend morefreely on R&D than end users, both users andsuppliers tend to focus on market-related criteriain making production investment decisions.

As pointed out by one executive from a com-pany that is both a ceramic materials supplier andcomponent manufacturer, companies must makeinvestment decisions all along the spectrum frombasic research through production:

The decision making process changes dramati-cally depending on where you are in R&D andwhether or not you’re ready to go into produc-tion. In the research phase, numbers are prettysoft-you identify an opportunity and make asmall investment by comparison to later phases.As you move up that curve to the developmentphase, you’re dumping a lot more money in.When you make that final decision to go into pro-duction, you’re talking about the big bucks andyou want to have as hard a number as you canget your hands on.

R&D Investment Criteria

The major criteria employed by suppliers andusers of advanced materials to assess R&D andproduction investments in advanced ceramicsand composite materials are indicated in table8-1. The more technology-oriented criteria arelisted toward the top, and the more market-oriented toward the bottom.

Very few of the suppliers interviewed purportedto use typical business assessment tools (e.g., re-turn on investment) in selecting and ranking ad-vanced materials R&D projects. Although someexecutives indicated that potential market sizewas considered, most often they used preliminaryestimates merely as an order of magnitude indi-cation of the potential market. A typical attitudewas:

If you estimate market size–you’ll quit. Wedon’t know the ultimate markets yet. Discountedcash flow methods will tell you to get out of ad-vanced ceramics research—you have to operateon faith that a ceramics market will develop.

Table 8-1 .—Industry Investment Decision Criteria

Materials suppliers Materials users

Decision criteria R&D Production R&D and production

Corporate technicalcapabilities *

Material performancecharacteristics * *

Fit with corporate strategy *

Competitive threats *

Threat of technicalobsolescence *

Sales volume:● Market volume * *● Market share

Return on investment orassets * *

Timing:• Payback period *● Time to market

*indicates major investment criteria.The more technology-oriented criteria are listed toward the top, and the more market-oriented toward

the bottom, As a group, suppliers apply more qualitative, technology-oriented criteria to R&Dinvestment decisions than users do. However, both suppliers and users apply quantitative,market-oriented criteria to production investment decisions.

SOURCE: Technology Management Associates, ‘‘Industrial Criteria for Investment Decisions mR&D and Production Facilities, ” a contractor report for OTA, January 1986.

The attitudes of advanced materials suppliersand users toward the investment criteria listed intable 8-1 are discussed below. The technical ca-pability of the company—viewed both in termsof research resources and production experience—was the criterion for R&D investment mostoften mentioned by materials suppliers. It is ageneral industry view that success in materialsR&D is to a great extent dependent on technicalexperience and the existing corporate technologybase, including facilities, personnel, and equip-ment. Highest priorities go to R&D projects thatbuild on the corporation’s technical experiencein related materials research and production.

Some corporations without the technical capa-bility to participate in specific aspects of advancedmaterials R&D obtain the necessary capabilitiesby hiring personnel, corporate acquisitions, orjoint ventures. Many companies also supplementtheir R&D capabilities by participating in col-laborative efforts with universities and Federallaboratories. Although some corporations feelthat this is an appropriate R&D investment, re-sults are considered “spotty,” and many com-panies feel that the most beneficial aspect of thecollaborative programs with universities is access

Ch. 8—Industr@ Criteria for Investment “ 193

to top-quality students. (This view is consistentwith the analysis of university/industry collabora-tive programs in ch.10.)

Corporate consideration of the potential ma-terials performance characteristics reflects an in-terest in material functions that have a highervalue, such as thermal stability or strength. Bothsuppliers and users cited superior performancecharacteristics as a principal motivation for R&Dinvestments. However, most of the user compa-nies in the aerospace, automotive, biomedical,and construction industries conduct R&D that isclosely tied to near-term production, such as ma-terial evaluation, fabrication technology devel-opment, and certification or qualification testing.

Many companies also use “fit with corporateculture” as a criterion for R&D investment. Sup-pliers identify themselves as “an engineered ma-terials producer, “ “a chemical company’s chem-ical company, ” or in other similar terms that areconsistent with the high-technology culture. Aproposed R&D project that does not fit with thiscorporate image is often abandoned.

Some companies, concerned that their com-petitive position may change, pay close attentionto the materials R&D that other companies areconducting. Many companies have made a con-scious decision to maintain a technical lead inspecific markets (e. g., aerospace) and conductR&D to keep ahead of the competition. One sup-plier of composite materials indicated that:

. . . more improvements have been made in ther-mosetting composites in the last 12 months thanin the last 10 years to compete with thermoplas-tic composites, because it looked like the AirForce was going to be inclined to use thermoplas-tics (for the Advanced Tactical Fighter).

Production Investment Criteria

Although suppliers and users are not all inagreement about the timing and amounts of capi-tal to invest in production facilities, most com-panies agree that the production decision de-pends on three major criteria: the threat oftechnological obsolescence, potential sales vol-ume, and return on investment.

The threat of technical obsolescence is an im-portant criterion in the production decision. Ma-

terials suppliers are concerned, for instance, thata facility could become uneconomical due to asignificant advancement in production technol-ogy, or that a technically superior product coulddisplace the company’s own product in themarket.

Suppliers interviewed indicated that an initialsales volume of $50 million to $200 million wouldbe necessary to induce investment in a new pro-duction facility. However, most companies alsoexpect the potential for that sales volume to growto $1 billion in 10 years.

For some suppliers, such as manufacturers ofaerospace composite materials, the productiondecision is simplified. If the company’s productsare qualified by the military for specific programs,such as the Advanced Tactical Fighter program,then the total market for composites can be esti-mated with reasonable certainty by using somejudgment based on the number of other compo-sites that are also qualified (an indication of mar-ket share).

Potential sales volume is also a very importantcriterion for materials users in evaluating bothR&D and production investments. Initial sales vol-ume requirements range from $3 million to $5million among biomedical companies to $50 mil-lion to $100 million in the automotive and aero-space industries.

The potential return on investment (ROI) is animportant criterion in the production decision forboth suppliers and end users. The after-tax ROIrequired by supplier companies ranges from 10to 30 percent. This range reflects corporate assess-ments of potential risks and uncertainties in themarket. Suppliers of advanced materials to themilitary have generally lower ROI criteria—10percent—whereas chemical and materials com-panies selling in commercial markets requirehigher ROIs–20 to 30 percent. However, thiscomparison may be somewhat misleading in thatmilitary contractors have traditionally been ableto charge a significant amount of their develop-ment costs to the government instead of takingthem out of sales, as in the commercial case.

The market timing criteria employed by com-mercial end users of advanced materials inter-viewed by OTA varied significantly with indus-


try. The aerospace industry generally has a longer covered in a shorter time than do the materialsterm view than most other end users, and tim- suppliers. Most end users require a paybacking is not a major factor in either R&D or pro- period of 3 years or less, with profits in less thanduction investment decisions among military 5 years, before investment in production wouldaerospace companies. However, as a group, end be considered.users require that capital equipment costs be re-

BARRIERS TO COMMERCIALIZATION OF ADVANCED MATERIALSAlthough a diverse array of companies from

various industries are involved in R&D and com-mercialization of advanced structural materials,some common themes emerged when industryexecutives were queried about the reasons whythey would hesitate to establish new R&D pro-grams or commercialize new products involvingadvanced ceramics or composite materials. Theperceived barriers were somewhat different de-pending on whether the intended market wasmilitary or commercial.

In the case where the government is the cus-tomer for both R&D and advanced materialsproducts (especially military programs), marketuncertainties are reduced, and the planninghorizons of materials suppliers and manufacturersare much longer. As one supplier of compositematerials noted:

A distinction needs to be made between an in-dustry in which the government is a strong driverand a major customer, such as the aerospace in-dustry, which has been a champion of compos-ite materials—a truly long term commitment—and the part of the economy which depends onthe general market situation.

Among commercial end users, the profits thatcould be projected within the planning horizonsof the company in most cases do not justify thenear-term production costs. Advanced materialsinvolve a long and costly commercialization proc-ess in a business environment that often requiresa short-term focus; moreover, the currently de-pressed business climate in certain sectors of theeconomy—including construction, automobiles,and general aviation aircraft-results in a pre-occupation with protecting existing businesses.

Representative of industry views was the fol-lowing comment made by an advanced materialsupplier to the aerospace industry:

There is a long gestation period–between thetime that you develop a product, have it qualified,and when you sell it. A company has to havedone it before or the management will probablyget very impatient, because the R&D and qualifi-cation is done 3 to 5 years before the purchase.That is different from the commercial polymerbusiness where you can start seeing some salesin a year or two. A company has got to be pa-tient, and most companies are not.

Observed one advanced ceramic supplier andcomponent manufacturer:

In the truly private sector of the economy, astrong case can be made that a short-term preoc-cupation with cash flow has made it difficult formaterial suppliers and component manufacturers.

Within this context of two very different mar-ket situations, military and commercial, severalcommon barriers to production of advanced ma-terials and structures were cited in industryinterviews. These include: 1 ) the lack of an ade-quate experience base and data on the mechani-cal and processing properties of materials; 2) thelack of a suitable technology infrastructure forguaranteeing that advanced materials with speci-fied properties can be produced; and 3) insuffi-cient numbers of trained materials scientists andengineers. In addition, the high cost and long leadtime associated with the safety and performancecertification of new materials was perceived asa problem in both the biomedical and aerospacesectors.

On the other hand, the different market situa-tions also led to some different perspectives onthe principal barriers to investment. Not surpris-ingly, the defense-oriented side of the industrytends to single out defense policy-related con-cerns, while the commercial side cites broader

Ch. 8–Industrial Criteria for Investment “ 195

economic and government policy concerns.These are discussed below.

Concerns of Defense-OrientedSuppliers and Users

The role of the Department of Defense in theR&D and production of advanced materials andstructures is explored in detail in chapter 11.Here, however, it is appropriate to note some ofthe more commonly expressed industry attitudes.

E x p o r t r e s t r i c t i o n s a n d c o n t r o l s r e d u c e t h e

competitive position of U.S. companies abroadand can result in investment in production facili-ties outside of the United States.

Industry executives view government policy onthe export of advanced materials as a major bar-rier to commercialization because it limits theability of U.S. businesses to compete globally.Government delays in processing license appli-cations, for instance, raise the costs of deliver-ing the product to the market. Non-U.S. custom-ers do not want to do the paperwork.

One supplier of composite materials declared:

If I have to ask my customer to go to his gov-ernment to get an import certificate so I can goto my government to get an export certificate, itjust costs both of us money, plus the hassle andthe time . . . [f I sell him the same material fourmonths from now, we go through the wholeshow again.

Another supplier of composite materials madethis point:

Carbon fiber and carbon fiber-based prepregsare technologies that are freely available in Eur-ope and the Pacific, yet a U.S.-based companyshipping overseas must apply for an exportlicense for technology and for product.

In addition, in the carbon fiber case, exportlicensing requirements place U.S. companies ata further disadvantage in foreign markets. A Euro-pean aircraft manufacturer that buys carbon fi-ber prepreg material from a U.S. company mustget permission from the U.S. Government to ex-port the finished airplane. If the same Europeancompany buys from another supplier in Europeor Japan, the paperwork and U.S. restrictions canbe avoided.

One consequence is that U.S.-based firms mak-ing composite materials have transferred produc-tion to Europe to supply European customers toavoid “messing with the bureaucracy.” Oneadvanced ceramics component manufacturerinterviewed by OTA indicated that the U.S. re-quirements for export licensing of machined com-ponents have also resulted in U.S. ceramics cor-porations setting up component finishing shopsin Europe to avoid the paperwork.

Delays in shipping caused by the necessity ofgoing through the export license process givesthe appearance that U.S. companies are unre-sponsive to market needs. Furthermore, as onesupplier of ceramic materials noted:

When we must file a statement with the De-partment of Commerce that describes the in-tended use, our customers complain about lossof confidentiality.

Industry interviews also indicated that the pri-vate sector is concerned over the inconsistenciesin the overall Federal export policy. One sourcecomplained that:

The Department of Commerce encourages ex-ports and the Department of Defense restrictsthem.

Differing Federal standards among governmentagencies slow the commercial introduction ofmilitary technology.

Different standards, approaches, and experi-ence levels of regulatory agency personnel caninhibit the transfer of technology from the mili-tary/defense arena and government space pro-grams to private sector applications. In aerospaceapplications of advanced composite materials, forinstance, one industry executive identified a keyissue:

Materials that spin out of the military aerospaceprograms (and supposedly are well-characterizedor qualified for military applications) must beretested for the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA).

Aerospace industry executives suggested thatFAA acceptance of military-qualified materialsand applications could be enhanced by the ac-celerated development of a military specificationhandbook for advanced materials, comparableto the currently accepted Military Handbook 5


for metals. Such an effort is in fact under way.Military Handbook 17 on composite materials iscurrently under development by the Army Ma-terials Laboratory in Watertown, MA.

Some executives, though, doubted that theavailability of such standards would reduce thetesting required by individual aerospace compa-nies. As executives from the aerospace and ad-vanced composite supplier fields stated theproblem:

•

●

●

●

“every corporation has its own speci-fications”;“companies will not accept data from any-body else”;“aerospace companies will not share theirdata”; and“if you’ve got six people vying for a militarycontract, you will have to qualify that givenmaterial six times. ”

Government procurement practices may dis-courage some advanced materials developersfrom participating in government markets.

Some industry executives voiced specific con-cerns over certain procurement policies and prac-tices which they encounter in the Federal sec-tor. In particular, the following issues were raisedin interviews and at the OTA workshop: 1 ) pro-curement contracts are made with more than onesource, which may force a company to share itstechnology with its competitors; 2) awards arecustomarily made to the lowest bidder, whichfavors existing suppliers and materials over newsuppliers and materials; and 3) there is too muchburdensome red tape.

These issues were identified in interviews withevery company that participates or has attemptedto participate in government programs. Thosecompanies that have been major suppliers to themilitary consider these issues “just the cost of do-ing business. ” However, some companies tryingto enter the government market identified themas real concerns. In fact, some companies, par-ticularly in the biomedical industry, have decidedto avoid government programs for these reasons.

A further issue is that government policies in-tended to assure domestic supply of scarce orstrategic feedstocks may actually inhibit private

sector investment. For example, the Title Ill pro-gram in the Defense Production Act (64 Stat. 798)permits the government to mitigate shortages ofcritical materials through purchasing mech-anisms.

One advanced ceramics materials supplier de-scribed the private sector investors’ problem inthis manner:

You have an investment plan all ready to putbefore the board and here the government iscoming in with a big attack on the issue. They’regoing to create multiple sources for domestic pro-duction. What should you do? You are interestedin that business and you see that the governmentis going to throw money at a program which youmight have a chance to get, and you know yourcompetitors are going to be looking at. What doyou do? You wait.

Concerns of Commercial Market=Oriented Suppliers and Users

Liability issues increase the risk and cost of de-velopment programs.

The manufacturer’s liability in the event ofproduct failure is a disincentive to innovation foradvanced materials suppliers and for users in allindustry segments. In the construction industry,for instance, long demonstration periods are re-quired to gain user and consumer confidence inthe safety of new or innovative materials.

In other industry segments as well, liability pro-tection, or extensive pre-testing to guard againstliability, is one of the biggest costs in the intro-duction of new products. In the words of onesupplier of ceramic materials:

The automotive industry is conservative, andvery sensitive to the failure of a supplier’s part thatwill cause General Motors to be liable for workunder warranty. Extensive testing is required andmust project well below 3 percent failure rate tobe within the automotive manufacturers’ war-ranty limits.

A user of advanced biomedical materials madethis observation:

The government has to fix the liability prob-lem–it’s the biggest cost. Industry has been veryresponsible; no company would knowingly put

Ch. 8—industrial Criteria for Investment . 197

out an unsafe product. With most prostheses thatbreak, it’s a medical problem, not a materials orfabrication defect.

Added a user of advanced composites in themanufacture of general aviation aircraft:

Liability costs have gotten to the point wherethe private user cannot afford to buy a new air-plane. The minute an airplane goes out the door,the customer has to pay around $70,000 and thatjust supports our legal efforts.

patent protection is a major issue for some ad-vanced materials companies.

For many of the companies involved in ad-vanced materials—especially manufacturers ofadvanced ceramic components—their inability toprotect their patent position is a factor that in-hibits investment in R&D and commercializationprograms in advanced materials. A representa-tive point of view, as expressed by a supplier ofceramic materials, is as follows:

Ceramic component manufacturers have noway to protect processes with patents. A processpatent law that will cover ceramic componentfabrication technology is needed. Current in-fringements go unpunished.

However, several materials suppliers and usersthroughout all industry segments tend to dis-regard patents. One ceramic component manu-facturer feels that patents are not very useful, not-ing that:

patents today may not be worth much 5 yearsfrom now because technology is advancing sorapidly.

Recent changes in the tax laws may create sig-nificant barriers to R&D investment.

Changes in the tax laws in 1986 are likely toaffect both suppliers and users of advanced ma-terials. Industry executives cited several changesthat may directly inhibit investments in R&D andthe markets for products containing advancedmaterials. Chief among their complaints were theremoval of investment tax credits and reduceddepreciation allowances. On the other hand, onesupplier of ceramic materials componentspointed out that:

. . . if you look to the tax situation as a decision-maker, you’re making a mistake, because whatthe government can give they can take away inthe next Congress. Any advantage due to the cur-rent tax situation can erode.

Changing product certification requirementscan p/ace a competitive disadvantage on market

leaders .

Testing for product certification-primarily tomeet government requirements—was one of thespecific inhibitory factors cited most often bothby suppliers and users, particularly in the aero-space and biomedical industries. Certification andlicensing requirements contribute heavily to bothdevelopment costs and the time required for R&Dand commercialization. For example, in thewords of one composites supplier to the aero-space industry:

It costs $1 million to get a new fiber andprepreg certified through the Federal AviationAdministration, and it could take 10 years.

A supplier of ceramic materials made thiscomment:

Acceptance testing for ceramic materials takestoo long–on the order of 7 years for many ap-plications. The expense is not the key–it’s thetime.

And a user of advanced biomedical materialscomplained:

The biggest impediment is the Food and DrugAdministration (FDA). Testing and retesting everysmall improvement takes time and money.

Certification expenses can include both the di-rect costs associated with testing a material orretesting a military-qualified material, as well asthe indirect costs of “educating” personnel inFederal regulatory agencies, such as FDA andFAA. Companies that are first to market may beat a competitive disadvantage if “close follow”companies can avoid some of the costs and de-lays by marketing a very similar product.

A good example of this principle is advancedmaterials R&D in the biomedical industry. Bio-medical products introduced after the 1976 Foodand Drug, Device and Cosmetics Act (Public Law94-295) that are “substantially equivalent” to


products classified by FDA before 1976 can besold on the open market on the basis of a shortapproval application. However, manufacturersof new technologies, such as advanced ceramicor composite implants, are required to file an“Investigational Device Exemption” (IDE) and tocarry out expensive preclinical and clinical trials.After 2 to 3 years, the company may seek FDAapproval of that specific product on the basis ofthe clinical trials.

In theory, each additional company with a sim-ilar product also has to go through the same IDEprocess. However, FDA may change the statusof a material if clinical evidence shows that thematerial is safe. Once the material is reclassified,other companies seeking to market productsmade from the material for essentially equivalentapplications need only file a short statement ofthe material’s safety record. Therefore, everyinnovative leader must perform expensive teststo prove its product is safe to win FDA approval,

but at the same time it risks wasting its investmentin development and testing.

In summary, the concerns identified aboveconstitute significant barriers to companies seek-ing to produce ceramic and composite productsfor commercial markets. However, the principalbarrier remains the fact that investments in ad-vanced materials R&D and production do notmeet the cost/benefit criteria of most U.S. com-mercial end users today. Thus, there is very lit-tle commercial market pull on these technologies.

At the same time, it is important to recognizethat some foreign competitors do not apply thesame cost/benefit criteria to their investments;rather, they take a longer term “technologypush” approach, and they are prepared to sac-rifice near-term profits to obtain the experiencein manufacturing with advanced materials nec-essary to secure a greater share of the long-termmarkets. This theme is developed further in thenext chapter.

APPENDIX 8-1: ORGANIZATIONS INTERVIEWEDCorporations:

Aluminum Co. of America—Alcoa LaboratoriesAluminum Co. of America—Ceramics DivisionAMOCO Performance Products Inc.BASF Corp.—Celion Carbon Fibers DivisionBeech Aircraft Corp. *Biomet Inc. Research and DevelopmentBlasch Precision Ceramics Inc.Boeing Commercial Airplane Co.Business Communications Co., Inc.Calciteck Inc.Calmat Co.Cannon Publishing–Medical Devices and

Diagnostic IndustryCeiba-Geigy Corp.–Plastics and Additives DivisionChampion Spark Plug Co.–Ceramics DivisionChrysler Corp.–Metallurgical Development

DepartmentConcrete Technology Corp.–R&DCoors Biomedical Co.Coors Porcelain Co.Dentsply International Inc.DePuy Co.Douglas Aircraft Co.Dow Chemical Co. USA–Central ResearchDow Chemical Co. USA—Ceramics

Dow Corning Corp.–Advanced Ceramics ProgramDu Pont Co.Dural International Corp.DWA Composite Specialties, Inc.*Dynamet Technology, Inc. *Ferro Corp.–Commercial DevelopmentFiberglass Structural Engineering Co.The Garrett Corp.General Dynamics Corp.General Motors Corp.–AC Spark PlugGeneral Motors Corp. —Detroit Diesel AllisonGenstar Stone Products Co.Grumman Corp. –Aircraft Systems*Hercules, Inc.–Graphite MaterialsHexcel Corp.Howmedica, Inc.Hysol Grafil Co.ICl FiberiteIntegrated Polymer Industries, Inc.Johnson & Johnson–Dental Products Co.Kaiser Cement Corp.Kerr SybronLockheed Corp.Lone Star Industries, Inc.McDonnell Douglas Corp.—Aerospace

● Workshop participants whose comments are reflected in this chapter.

Ch. 8–Industrial Criteria for Investment c 199

Mobay Corp.Northrop Corp.–Aircraft DivisionNorton Co. *OrthomatrixOwens-Corning Fiberglass Corp.–Technical CenterPPG Industries, Inc.Price Brothers Co.Richards Medical Co.Salt River Project–Structural EngineeringShell Chemical Co. *SOHIO Engineered Materials Co.–Structural

Ceramics DivisionStanley Structures, Inc.Sterling Winthrop Research InstituteTechmedica, Inc.3M Co.– Health Care Group LaboratoryTranspo Industries, lnc.–R&DUnion Carbide Corp.–Specialty Products GroupWestinghouse Electric Corp.–Advanced Energy

Systems DivisionWestinghouse Electric Corp.–R&D Materials

Science DivisionWiss-Janney-Elstner Associates

Government agencies:

Federal Highway Administration–Paving MaterialsNational Bureau of Standards

National Institutes of Health–Division of ResearchServices

State of Connecticut–Department ofTransportation

State of Texas–Highway DepartmentU.S. Department of Commerce–Chemicals GroupU.S. Department of Commerce—Non-ferrous

Metals DivisionU.S. Department of Energy–Oak Ridge National

LaboratoriesU.S. Department of Energy–Argonne National

LaboratoriesU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Industry trade groups and advisors:

ACI Concrete Materials Research CouncilAmerican Concrete InstituteAmerican Society of Civil EngineersMount Sinai Medical Center*National Ready Mix Concrete AssociationPortland Cement AssociationPrestressed Concrete InstituteSuppliers of Advanced Composite Materials

AssociationU.S. Advanced Ceramics Association

*Workshop participants whose comments are reflected in this chapter.

Chapter

International BUSiness Trends

CONTENTSPage

F ind ings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203Introduction . . . . . ........................205C e r a m i c s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 6

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...........210Western Europe. . ......................216

Polymer Matrix Composites .. .. .. ... ... ...220United States . . .. ... . ... ..... . ........220Japan. .. . . .. ........ .. .. ... ... . ...227Western Europe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230

Metal Matrix Composites . .................236Uni ted States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .237Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ............238Western Europe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .239

Appendix 9-l: Recent Joint Relationships in theU.S. Advanced Ceramics industry . ...,....241

Appendix 9-2: Recent Joint Relationships in theJapanese Advanced Ceramics industry ... ..243

Appendix 9-3: Recent Joint Relationships in theWestern European Advanced CeramicsI n d u s t r y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 4

Appendix 9-4; Recent Joint Relationships in theU.S. Advanced Composites Industry . ......245

Appendix 9-5: Recent Joint Relationships in theJapanese Advanced Composites Industry. ...247

Appendix 9-6: Recent Joint Relationships in theWestern European Advanced CompositesI n d u s t r y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 8


9-1. Japanese Government Agencies Responsiblefor Science and Technology Policy .. ....214

9-2. Structure of the Advanced Compositesindustry . . . . . . . . . ....................221

TablesTable No. Page

9-1. Value of Advanced Ceramics Consumed inthe United States, and Produced in Japanand Western Europe in 1985 . .........207

9-2. Major U.S. Companies With StructuralCeramics Products in Production, 1986 ..207

9-3. Major U.S. Companies With Ongoing

9-4

9-59-6

Structural Ceramics R&D Efforts 1986...208United States Advanced CeramicsAssociation (USACA) Membership List ...210Major Japanese Powder Suppliers . ......211Major Japanese Manufacturers of FinishedCeramic Components .. .. ... ... ... .212

9-7. Major Japanese Users of Ceramic Parts orComponents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .212

9-8. Collaborative Programs Between JapaneseAutomobile and Ceramics Companies ...213

9-9. Japanese Government Funding forAdvanced Structural and ElectronicCeramics . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . ...215

9-1o.

9-11.

9-12.

9-13.

9-14.

9-15.

9-16.

9-17.

9-18.

9-19.

9-20.

9-21.

9-22.

9-23.9-24.

9-25.

9-26.

9-27.

9-28.

9-29.

9-30.

9-31.9-32.

9-33.

9-34

9-35

9-36

Page

End Use Markets Served by Major European -

Ceramics Suppliers. . .................216lmpact of Foreign Suppliers on the WesternEuropean Advanced Ceramics Market ...218Major Japanese and U.S. Suppliers ofPowders and Finished Ceramics to WesternEurope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218European Government Spending onNational R&D Programs for Ceramics in1 9 8 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 9French Government Funding for CeramicsResearch, 1985. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .219Production Value of AdvancedComposite Structures, 1985 . ..........221Breakdown of Regional Markets forAdvanced Composites byEnd Use, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222Participation of Key Firms in the U.S.Advanced Composites Industry, 1986 ...222Major Suppliers of Base Resins for AdvancedComposites in the United States, 1986 ..223Major Fiber Suppliers in the United States,1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............223Recent Moves Toward Forward IntegrationAmong U.S.-Based AdvancedComposites Suppliers. . ...............224Members of the Suppliers of AdvancedComposite Materials Association(SACMA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..,........226Major Suppliers of Base Resins for AdvancedComposites in Japan, 1986............227Major Fiber Suppliers in Japan, 1986....228Participation of Major Prepreg Suppliers inthe Japanese Market, 1986 . ...........228Major End Users of Advanced Compositesin Japan, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..229Major National Laboratories PerformingAdvanced Composites Research in Japan 230Distribution of the Advanced PMC Businessin Western Europe, 1986.............,230Major Suppliers of Resins in WesternEurope, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .231Major Suppliers of High-Performance Fibersin Western Europe, 1986...........,..232Major Prepreggers and Weavers in WesternEurope . . . . . . ....... . ...........,232Carmat 2000 Participants. . ............234Major French Laboratories ConductingAdvanced Composites R&D, 1986..,...235British Government Organizations WithResearch Programs in AdvancedComposites, 1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236Major Suppliers of MMC Materials in theUnited States, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .237Principal Organizations Involved in MMCResearch in Japan, 1986 ., ............238Principal Organizations Involved in MMCResearch in Western Europe, 1986 .. ...239

Chapter 9

International Business Trends

FINDINGS

Several worldwide trends are apparent in theevolving advanced materials industries. These in-clude a shift toward larger, more integrated com-panies, the growing multinational character ofthese companies, and increasing governmentsupport for development of advanced materialstechnologies.

In the long run, large integrated materials com-panies are likely to dominate the high volumemarkets for advanced materials. One reason isthat the capital costs of scale-up and productionare higher than most small companies can afford.Also, the close relationships between design,manufacturing, and quality control demanded byadvanced materials are more consistent with thecapabilities of a large, vertically integrated com-pany. Because most of the value added in ad-vanced materials businesses lies in the produc-tion of components and shapes, there is aneconomic incentive for suppliers of powders,resins, or fibers to vertically integrate into thesedownstream businesses.

Even so, small companies will also be an im-portant force in advanced materials technologydevelopments. Indeed, because current demandis primarily for research services or limited pro-duction of specialty materials for military use,small companies are already playing a major rolein advanced materials development, especiallyin the area of metal matrix composites, Evenamong the large companies involved, their ad-vanced materials divisions are typically minorsidelights of the main businesses. In the future,small companies will continue to be a source ofinnovative materials and processes and will con-tinue to supply niche markets too small to attractthe large integrated companies.

Through acquisitions, joint ventures, andlicensing agreements, advanced materials indus-tries have become markedly more internationalin character over the past several years. This tendsto increase the rate of technology flow across na-

tional borders, creating new challenges and, po-tentially, new opportunities for U.S. companies.This trend also poses problems for the U.S. mili-tary, a major consumer of advanced materials,as it attempts to limit the dissemination of thesetechnologies for national security reasons.

Throughout the world, government support foradvanced materials development has been stead-ily increasing. These materials are seen as essen-tial both to national economies and to nationaldefense. Government programs can have a ma-jor impact on industry spending, by providing co-ordination, R&D funding, and markets, especiallythrough the military. However, the real deter-minant of long-term commercial success is likelyto be the commitment of the companies them-selves.

Ceramics

The U.S. market for advanced ceramics in 1985was about $1.9 billion (no data were availableon U.S. production). Advanced ceramic produc-tion in Japan and Western Europe in 1985 were$2.3 billion and $0.5 billion respectively. In eachof these three geographic regions, electronic oroptical applications, such as capacitors, sub-strates, integrated circuit packages, and fiber op-tics, accounted for over 80 percent of the total.Structural applications, including wear parts, toolsand accessories, and heat-resistant products, ac-counted for the remainder.

By a margin of nearly 2 to 1, the U.S. ceramicscompanies interviewed by OTA felt that Japan isthe world leader in advanced ceramics R&D.Without question, Japan has been the leader inactually producing structural ceramic productsfor both industrial and consumer use. Japaneseend users exhibit a commitment to the use ofthese materials not found in the United States.This commitment is reflected in the fact that al-though the U.S. and Japanese governments spend

203


comparable amounts on ceramics R&D (roughly$100 million per year), Japanese industry spendsfar more on such R&D than does U.S. industry.

Japanese ceramics companies are far more ver-tically and horizontally integrated than U.S. com-panies, a fact that probably enhances their abil-ity to produce higher quality ceramic parts atlower prices. However, these companies areprobably still losing money on the structural ce-ramic parts they produce. This commitment re-flects the long-term optimism of Japanese com-panies regarding the future of ceramicstechnologies.

The Japanese market for structural ceramics islikely to develop before the U.S. market. Cer-amics technology already has a high profile in Ja-pan, due in part to the Japanese industry strat-egy of producing low technology consumergoods, such as scissors and fish hooks, using hightechnology materials and processes. The overallgoal of this strategy is the development of a high-technology manufacturing base to capture largerceramics markets in the future.

Given the self-sufficiency of the Japanese ce-ramics industry, the Japanese market is likely tobe difficult to penetrate by U.S. suppliers. In con-trast, Japanese ceramics firms, which alreadydominate the world markets for electronic ceram-ics, are strongly positioned to exploit the U.S.market as it develops. One such firm, Kyocera,the largest and most highly integrated ceramicsfirm in the world, has already established sub-sidiaries and, recently, R&D centers in the UnitedStates.

West Germany, France, and the United King-dom all have initiated large government programsin advanced ceramics R&D. West German com-panies have the strongest position in powders andfinished products. Meanwhile, the EuropeanCommunity (EC) has earmarked $20 million foradvanced ceramics research through 1989. Al-though Western Europe appears to have all of thenecessary ingredients for its own structural ce-ramics industry, both the United States and Ja-pan have a strong foothold in the European mar-ket for electronic ceramics.


The production value of finished advancedpolymer matrix composite (PMC) componentsproduced worldwide in 1985 was approximately$2.1 billion, divided roughly as follows: theUnited States, $1.3 billion; Japan, $200 million;and Western Europe, $600 million. The U.S. andEuropean markets are dominated by aircraft andaerospace applications, while the Japanese do-mestic market is primarily in sporting goods. Inthe United States, advanced composites devel-opment is driven by military programs, while inEurope, advanced composites are predominantlyused in commercial aircraft.

On the strength of its military aircraft and aero-space programs in PMCs, the United States leadsthe world in PMC technology. Due to the attrac-tiveness of PMCs for new weapons programs, themilitary fraction of the market is likely to increasein the near term. However, due to the high costof such military materials and structures, they arenot likely to be used widely in commercial ap-plications.

The commercial application of PMCs is an areawhere the United States remains vulnerable tocompetition from abroad. U.S. suppliers of PMCmaterials report that foreign commercial endusers (particularly those outside the aerospace in-dustry) are more active in experimenting with thenew materials than are U.S. commercial endusers. For example, Western Europe is consid-ered to lead the world in composite medical de-vices. The regulatory environment controlling theuse of new materials in the human body is cur-rently less restricted in Europe than in the UnitedStates.

France is by far the dominant force in PMCsin Western Europe, with sales greater than allother European countries combined. West Ger-many, the United Kingdom, and Italy make upmost of the balance. The commercial aircraftmanufacturer, Airbus Industrie, a consortium ofEuropean companies, is the single largest con-sumer of PMCs in Western Europe. At the Euro-pean Community level, significant expenditures

Ch. 9—International Business Trends ● 205

are being made to facilitate the introduction ofPMCs into commercial applications. In addition,the EUREKA program called Carmat 2000 pro-poses to spend $60 million through 1990 to de-velop PMC automobile structures.

In the past few years, the participation of West-ern European companies in the U.S. PMC mar-ket has increased dramatically. This has occurredprimarily through their acquisitions of U.S. com-panies, a move that appears to reflect these com-panies’ desire to participate more directly in theU.S. defense market and to establish a diversi-fied, worldwide business. One result is that West-ern European companies now control 25 percentof resins, 20 percent of carbon fibers, and so per-cent of prepreg sales in the United States. A sec-ondary result of these acquisitions is likely to bethe transfer of U.S. PMC technology to WesternEurope, such that Europe will eventually be lessdependent on the United States for this tech-nology.

Although Japan is the largest producer of car-bon fiber in the world, it has has been only a mi-nor participant to date in the advanced compos-ites business. One reason is that Japan has notdeveloped a domestic aircraft industry, the sec-tor that currently uses the largest quantities of ad-vanced composites, A second reason is that Jap-anese companies have been limited by licensingagreements from participating directly in the U.S.market.


No estimates were available to OTA of thevalue of current MMC production in the UnitedStates, Japan, and Western Europe. The principalmarkets for MMC materials in the United States

and Western Europe are in the defense and aero-space sectors. Accordingly, over 90 percent($1 54.5 million of $163.6 million) of the U.S. Gov-ernment funding for MMC R&D between 1979and 1986 came from DoD.

The structures of the U.S. and European MMCindustries are similar, with small, undercapital-ized firms supplying the formulated MMC mate-rials. Some analysts feel that the integration of thesmall MMC suppliers into larger concerns hav-ing access to more capital will be a critical stepin producing reliable, low-cost materials,

Currently, the most common matrix used is alu-minum. The large aluminum companies have ac-tive R&D programs under way, and they are con-sidering forward integration into MMCs. Thereare also in-house efforts at the major aircraft com-panies to develop new composites and new proc-essing methods,

Unlike their small, undercapitalized counter-parts in the United States and Western Europe,the Japanese companies involved in manufactur-ing MMCs are largely the same as those involvedin supplying PMCs and ceramics; i.e., the largeintegrated materials companies. Another differ-ence is that Japanese MMC suppliers focus pri-marily on commercial applications, includingelectronics, sporting goods, automobiles, and air-craft and aerospace structures.

One noteworthy Japanese MMC developmentis the introduction by Toyota of a diesel enginepiston consisting of aluminum locally reinforcedwith ceramic fibers. This is an important har-binger of the use of MMCs in low-cost, high-volume applications, and it has stirred consider-able worldwide interest among potential com-mercial users of MMCs.

INTRODUCTION

Advanced structural materials technologies are sums in multi-year programs in collaboration withbecoming markedly more international in char- industry to facilitate commercial development.acter. Through acquisitions, joint ventures, and Critical technological advances continue to comelicensing agreements, the firms involved are seek- from other countries; e.g., carbon fiber technol-ing both access to growing worldwide markets ogy from the United Kingdom and Japan, weav-and ways of lowering their production costs. Gov- ing technology from France, and hot isostaticernments around the world are investing large pressing technology from Sweden.


This trend toward internationalization of thetechnology has many important consequencesfor U.S. Government and industry policy makers.The United States can no longer assume that itwill dominate the technological advances and theapplications resulting from them. The influx offoreign technology may be just as significant inthe future as that flowing out. Moreover, the in-creasingly multinational character of materials in-dustries suggests that the rate of technology flowamong firms and countries is likely to increasein the future. For the United States as for othercountries, it will not be possible to rely on a su-perior research and development capability toprovide the advantage in developing commercialproducts. Rather, if the technology infrastructureis not in place for quickly appropriating the re-sults of R&D for economic development, thoseresults will first be used elsewhere.

The consequences of globalization of advancedstructural materials technologies are perhapsmost starkly important for military policy. Mili-tary programs are often responsible for the ini-tial development and use of new materials in theUnited States, and all indications are that the in-volvement of the military is likely to increase inthe future. The military has an interest in prevent-ing the flow of this technology to unfriendly coun-tries, and in securing domestic sources of the ma-terials involved. Both of these interests arecomplicated by the globalization of the industry.

Attempts to erect barriers to the internationaltransfer of technology may result in the UnitedStates being bypassed both in the technology andin market opportunities abroad. In effect, U.S.military interests, which are based on a nationalperspective, are on a collision course with U.S.commercial interests, which have taken on an in-ternational aspect. The consequences of increas-ing military activity in advanced materials R&Dare discussed more fully in chapter 11.

This chapter presents a comparative analysisof advanced structural materials industry trendsin the United States, Western Europe, and Japan.These regions were chosen because they appearto have the strongest government and industryprograms for developing and applying advancedmaterials. The changing industry structures andrelationships with government institutions are ex-amined to illustrate the factors that will determinethe relative competitiveness of advanced mate-rials users and suppliers in the future, Data forthis chapter were gathered through extensive in-terviews with government and industry person-nel, as well as through literature and computerdatabase searches.12

‘Business Communications Co., Inc., “Strategies of Advanced Ma-terials Suppliers and Users, ” a contractor report prepared for OTA,Jan. 28, 1987.

Zstrategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Ad-vanced Materials, ” a contractor report prepared for OTA, Mar. 24,1987.

CERAMICSThe value of advanced ceramics consumed in

the United States, and produced in Japan andWestern Europe in 1985 is estimated in table 9-1. (No data were available on U.S. production.)Electronic applications for advanced ceramics,such as integrated circuit packages and capaci-tors, are considerably more mature than struc-tural applications, and accounted for at least 80percent of total production. Structural ceramicsof the type considered in this assessment ac-counted for the remainder. This dominance ofelectronic markets over structural markets is likelyto prevail into the next century.3

3Greg Fisher, “Strategies Emerge for the Advanced Ceramics Busi-ness, ” American Ceramic Society Bulletin, vol. 65, No. 1, January

Comparisons among advanced ceramics mar-kets in these three regions are complicated bytwo factors. First, there is little agreement on whatcategories of ceramics should be considered “ad-vanced”; Japanese estimates tend to include ad-ditional categories, such as alumina catalyst sup-ports, that are normally excluded in Westerncalculations. Thus, it is important to specify thecategories being included along with the num-bers. A second factor is that the current U.S.Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes usedto collect industry performance statistics are toobroad to distinguish advanced ceramics fromtraditional ceramics, such as tableware. Thus, theUnited States has no reliable index with which

1986. to track the performance of its advanced ceramics

Ch. 9—lnternational Business Trends . 207

Table 9-1 .—Value of Advanced Ceramics Consumedin the United States, and Produced in Japan and

Western Europe in 1985 ($ millions)

ticularly end users) to invest their own capital inlong-term development efforts. These factors arediscussed further below.

Electronic a Structural b

Region applications applications Total

United Statesc. . . . . . 1,763 112 1,875Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,920 360 2,280Western Europe . . . . 390 80 470alncludes packages/substrates, capacitors, ferrites, piezoelectrics, resistors.blncludes automatize parts (pistons, liners, valves, bearings), cutting tools, in-

dustrial (bearings, seals, microfilters, grinding media for ball mills, sandblastnozzles, sensors), aerospace parts (space shuttle tiles, etc.), and bioceramics.

consumption in 1985,

SOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of AdvancedMaterials,” a contractor report prepared for OTA, Mar. 24, 1987; andBusiness Communications Co., Inc., “Strategies of Advanced Materi-als Suppliers and Users, ” a contractor report prepared for OTA, Jan.28, 1987.

industry. This contrasts sharply with the situationin Japan, where the Ministry of InternationalTrade and Industry (MITI) publishes detailed ad-vanced ceramics production figures each month,broken out by category and including import andexport activity. The need for better statistical in-formation on the U.S. advanced ceramics indus-try is discussed further in chapter 12.

United States

Today, the U.S. advanced ceramics industryfaces major challenges from foreign competition.Over the past decade, the U.S. share of the worldmarkets for electronic ceramic components,which constitute about 80 percent of total ad-vanced ceramics markets, has largely been lostto Japan. The race to commercialize advancedstructural ceramics is still being run; however,there is ample reason for concern about the out-come. For instance, in spite of large Federal pro-grams aimed at development of ceramic enginecomponents beginning in the early 1970s, andsubstantial ceramic R&D efforts within the U.S.automobile companies and their suppliers, De-troit has yet to introduce a U.S.-made structuralceramic component in a production automobile.This situation contrasts sharply with that in Japan,where Nissan began introducing ceramic turbo-charger rotors in 1985.

The future competitive position of U.S. com-panies is likely to depend on several factors, in-cluding company size and level of integration,participation in cooperative industry/industry orgovernment/industry efforts, and, perhaps mostimportantly, the willingness of companies (par-

Industry Structure

The most important U.S. participants in the ad-vanced ceramics industry tend to be medium- orlarge-sized corporations that have experiencewith traditional ceramics or that are diversifyingfrom other structural materials areas. These in-clude Norton Co., Champion Spark Plug, Stand-ard Oil Engineered Materials, Coors Ceramics,GTE, and Alcoa. The major U.S. companies thathave structural ceramics products in productionare listed in table 9-2. Most of these products arewear parts, refractories, cutting tools, or militaryitems such as armor and radomes. Those com-panies that have major ongoing R&D efforts, butfew if any commercial products are listed in ta-ble 9-3. New participants in the industry may

Table 9-2.—Major U.S. Companies With StructuralCeramics Products in Production, 1986

Company Products

Advanced RefractoriesTechnologies

Aluminum Co. of AmericaCeradyne

Champion Spark Plug Co.

Coors Ceramics Co.

Corning Glass Works

E.I. Du Pont de Nemours& co.

GTE Products Corp.

W.R. Grace & Co.

Kennametal, Inc.

Norton Co.

Standard Oil EngineeredMaterials Co.

Solar Turbines, Inc.3M Co.Union Carbide Corn.

Powders, nuclear productsPowders, wear partsArmor, aerospace

products, electronicsPowders, insulators, jet

ignitersrefractory tubes, rods,

electronics, wear partsGlass and glass/ceramics,

aerospace windows,refractories

FibersWear parts, radomes,

engine parts,electronics, Klystronand X-ray tubes

Grinding media, milllinings

Cutting tools, wear parts,armor, gun parts

Powders, bearings, filters,armor, cutting tools

Refractories, heatingelements, fibers, heatexchangers, wear parts

Coatings, heat exchangersFibersPowders, coatings

SOURCE: Business Communications Co., Inc., “Strategies of Advanced MaterialsSuppliers and Users, ” a contractor report prepared for OTA, Jan. 28,1987.


Table 9-3.—Major U.S. Companies With OngoingStructural Ceramics R&D Efforts, 1986

(Iittie or no commercial production)

Company R&D area

Aerospace Corp.Air Products and

Chemicals, inc.Astromet Associates

Avco Corp.Specialty Materials

DivisionBrunswick Corp.Cummins Engine Co.Ford Motor Co.

Garrett Corp.AiResearch Casting Co.Garrett Turbine Engine

co.General Motors Corp.

Allison Gas TurbineDivision

Detroit Diesel AllisonHowmet Turbine

Space systemsCoatings

Refractories, wear parts,electronics, coatings

Aerospace materials: heatshields, reentry systems

Radomes, missile systemsDiesel engine partsDiesel, turbine, and gas

engine components;cutting tools

TurbomachineryGas turbine engine

components

Gas turbine engine parts

Diesel engine partsWear parts, specialty

ceramicsSOURCE: Business Communications Co., Inc., “Strategies of Advanced Materials

Suppliers and Users,” a contractor report prepared for OTA, Jan. 28,1987.

come from chemical, petroleum, and othermaterials-based industries. Such companies, in-cluding Dow Chemical, Arco, Mobay, and Man-ville, already have experience with related proc-essing technologies such as sintering, hot isostaticpressing, or sol-gel powder production methods.

In recent years, there has been a trend towardvertical integration from powder suppliers to fin-ished components. Full vertical integration meansthe in-house capability to produce powders andprocess them into a finished product. A verticallyintegrated company has a high degree of con-trol over all steps in the fabrication of the prod-uct, and it profits from sales of the higher value--added finished product. A vertically integratedceramics supplier may hold an advantage overits more fragmented competitors in that an enduser—e.g. an automobile company or a turbineproducer–often prefers to obtain a complete sys-tem rather than obtaining all of the parts and as-sembling the product. This is particularly true ofnew materials used initially in low volumes.

In practice, there are few U.S. advanced ma-terials companies that can be considered truly in-

tegrated. Alcoa has plans to move in that direc-tion, and companies such as Corning Glass andNorton already have much of the required ca-pability. Most U.S. ceramics companies are par-tially integrated; i.e., they perform some combi-nation of powder production, design, assembly,machining, or testing in-house, but rely on out-side sourcing for some essential functions. Exam-ples include Cummins Engine Co., Kennemetal,Inc., and Solar Turbines, Inc.

Currently, there are no U.S. companies thatcould be considered horizontally integrated, i.e.,that make a variety of products that use similarmaterials. Horizontally integrated companieshave the capability of transferring knowledge andexperience acquired in one ceramic applicationto another. An excellent example of a horizon-tally integrated company is the Japanese firmKyocera, which is a world leader in electronicceramics but also produces ceramic cutting tools,auto parts, and bearings. Kyocera also has a largesubsidiary in the United States.

According to industry executives interviewedby OTA, it appears likely that there will be a res-tructuring of the U.S. ceramics industry over thenext few years. There will probably be some newentrants, such as the chemical companies indi-cated above; however, overall it is expected thatthere will be a consolidation of efforts. This islikely to occur for two reasons. First, the smallcurrent markets for ceramics can support onlya limited number of companies, and, given thetechnical and economic barriers that continue toplague structural ceramics, these markets are un-likely to expand rapidly in the next few years. Sec-ond, the complex technical requirements for suc-cessful participation in the industry necessitatea greater commitment of money, skilled person-nel, and facilities than can be afforded by mostfirms.

Consolidation is likely to occur in the form ofan increasing number of acquisitions, mergers,joint ventures, and other types of joint relation-ships. OTA found that 76 percent of the compa-nies interviewed either were engaged in, or wereseeking a joint venture.4 A representative com-

4Business Communications Co., Inc., op. cit., 1987.

Ch. 9—international Business Trends ● 209

pilation of recent acquisitions, mergers, and jointventures in the advanced ceramics industry isgiven in appendix 9-1 at the end of this chapter.

Foreign Participation in the U.S. Market

Foreign companies are positioning themselvesto take a large part of the slowly developing U.S.market for structural ceramics. To date, therehave been relatively few actual foreign acquisi-tions, although appendix 9-I shows that joint ven-tures between foreign and U.S. ceramics com-panies are common, and several foreigncompanies are building plants in the UnitedStates. A compelling example of this trend is pro-vided by the Japanese firm Kyocera. Kyocera’sU.S. subsidiary is planning a large R&D centerat its facility in Vancouver, Washington. Some ofthe best U.S. advanced ceramics scientists andengineers will be invited to do research there,where Kyocera will also provide condominium-style housing for the researchers and their fam-ilies. Kyocera has also endowed ceramics profes-sorships at the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-nology, Case Western Reserve University, and theUniversity of Washington.

Government/Industry Relationships

The U.S. Government spends $100 to$125 mil-lion annually on advanced ceramics R&D, morethan any other country.5 A breakout of Federalfunding for structural ceramics in fiscal year 1987is given in table 10 of chapter 2. In order of de-creasing expenditure, the principal agencies fund-ing structural ceramics R&D are the Departmentof Energy (DOE), Department of Defense (DoD),National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA), National Science Foundation (NSF), andNational Bureau of Standards (NBS), for a totalof around $65 million in fiscal year 1987. A largeproportion of this was spent for R&D performedwithin industrial laboratories; e.g., in fiscal year1985, 57 percent of a total of $54.5 million wentfor work performed in industrial laboratories, 30percent to Federal laboratories, 12 percent touniversities, and 1 percent to non-profit labora-tories. 6

5John B. Wachtman, “U.S. Continues Strong Surge in CeramicR& D,” Ceramic Irrdustry, September 1986.

‘According to an unpublished survey performed by S.J. Dapkunas,National Bureau of Standards.

DOE laboratories such as Oak Ridge, Argonne,Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Berkeley havelarge ceramics programs and many industrial con-tractors. Major ongoing programs in ceramictechnology development include DOE’s Heat En-gine Propulsion Program, administered by OakRidge National Laboratory. Fiscal year 1987 fund-ing was $22.5 million, including $4.5 million forheavy-duty diesel transport, $8 million for ad-vanced Stirling engine development, and $10 mil-lion for the Advanced Gas Turbine Program,which became the Advanced Turbine Technol-ogy Applications Program (AITAP) in 1987. DOEis also funding the Advanced Heat Exchanger Pro-gram in its Office of Industrial Programs, at about$2 million in fiscal year 1987.7

As yet, DOE industrial contractors have notdeemed it profitable to launch major efforts tocommercialize products resulting from these pro-grams. Program cost sharing by industry averagesaround 20 percent, which is enough to securean exclusive license for the technology from thegovernment. 8 Over 85 percent of the industry ex-ecutives contacted by OTA felt that continuedgovernment support for the industry was nec-essary.

The United States Advanced Ceramics Associa-tion (USACA) has recently completed a surveythat estimates annual U.S. industry investment inceramics R&D at $153 million, some 20 percenthigher than the Federal R&D figure.9 This situa-tion contrasts sharply with that prevailing in Ja-pan, where industry is estimated to spend somefour times more than the government for ceram-ics R&D. ’”

In recent years there has been growing Stateand regional funding for development of ad-vanced ceramics. Several States, including NewYork, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, nowfund centers of excellence in ceramics based at

TAccording t. presentation by Robert B. Schulz, Department ofEnergy, at the Interagency Coordinating Committee Meeting onStructural Ceramics, National Bureau of Standards, May 7987.

Slbid.gsteve Hellern, Executive Director, United States Advanced @-

amics Association, personal communication, November 1987.10ThiS estimate assumes that the Ministry of International Trade

and Industry (MITI) figures for the industry/government investmentratio for all Japanese R&D holds true for advanced ceramics.


local universities, and some have initiated tech-nology incubation programs designed to assistsmall start-up ceramics companies. The oppor-tunities for government/university/industry col-laboration in advanced materials R&D are dis-cussed in greater detail in chapter 10.

Industry Associations andProfessional Societies

Industry associations and professional societiesperform two important functions that enhancethe competitive position of U.S. companies. First,they organize regular meetings that serve as fo-rums for the exchange of new ideas. Second, theyserve as points of aggregation for the needs andconcerns of the affiliated companies, and theyhelp to communicate these needs to government.

A variety of professional societies sponsor meet-ings and other activities relating to advanced ce-ramic materials, as do such government agenciesas DOE, NASA, and DoD. These include theAmerican Ceramic Society (ACerS), ASM inter-national, the Federation of Materials Societies(FMS), and the American Institute of ChemicalEngineers (AIChE).

In 1985, a trade association called the UnitedStates Advanced Ceramics Association (USACA)was formed to promote the interests of U.S. ce-ramics companies by gathering and disseminat-ing information on worldwide ceramics activities,identifying opportunities and barriers to commer-cialization, and providing industry input to gov-ernment on such issues as process patents, stand-ards, and R&D policy. It is a national associationrepresenting more than 30 companies with an in-terest in the emerging field of advanced ceram-ics. USACA membership as of 1987 is given intable 9-4.

Japan

With limited metal and timber resources, Ja-pan has historically placed a great emphasis onceramics, which can be made from abundant rawmaterials. Japan has attained a leadership posi-tion in advanced ceramics through its eminencein the electronic ceramics market, including capa-citors and substrates/packages, a business thatwas dominated by the United States just a dec-

Table 9.4.—United States Advanced CeramicsAssociation Membership List, November 1987

Member Company

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.Allied-Signal AerospaceAluminum Company of AmericaAVX Corp.Blasch Precision Ceramics, Inc.Celanese Corp.CeradyneChampion Spark Plug Co.Chrysler Corp.Coors Ceramics Co.Corhart Refractories, Inc.Corning Glass WorksDeere & Co.Dow Chemical Co.Dow Corning Co.E.l. du Pont de Nemours & Co,Electro-Science Laboratories, Inc.Engelhard Corp.Ferro Corp.GA Technologies, Inc.General Ceramics, Inc.General Motors Corp.GTE Products Corp.Harshaw/Filtrol PartnershipIBM Corp.Lanxide Corp.Martin Marietta Corp.Norton Co.PPG IndustriesStandard Oil Engineered Materials Co.Sundstrand Corp.The Titan Corp.3M Co.

Union Carbide Corp.W.R. Grace & Co.SOURCE: United States Advanced Ceramics Association.

ade ago. The assets, human resources, and ex-perience gained through developing and manu-facturing electronic ceramics have put Japanesecompanies in a strong position to develop ad-vanced ceramics for structural applications.

Japan’s commitment to ceramics technologyhas been highlighted recently .11 Japanese Gov-ernment and industry have long been very op-timistic about the market potential for advancedceramics. For example, a recent projection by theMinistry of International Trade and Industry(MITI) put the annual market for all advanced ce-ramics at $30 billion by the year 2000 in Japanalone.12 Most estimates of the U.S. market in this

11 National Materials Advisry Board, “High Technology Ceramicsin Japan, ” NMAB-418, (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,1984).

lzMaterja/s and processing Rsport, Renee Ford (cd.), vol. 1, No.

5 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, August 1986).


time frame are one-third to one-half as large. AI-though MITI’s estimate includes a wider spectrumof materials and products than most such esti-mates, it reflects the broad consensus within Ja-pan that advanced ceramics is a key technologyfor the future.

Industry Structure

Many Japanese companies participate in theadvanced ceramics industry, including roughly100 powder suppliers, 250 suppliers of finishedcomponents, and 150 equipment suppliers. Re-cent entrants into this field include steel, cement,and petrochemical companies.

Major Japanese powder suppliers are listed intable 9-5. Many are vertically integrated, and alsoproduce shapes. A prime example, Kyocera,manufactures shapes used in both electronic andstructural applications from powders producedcaptively.

Leading manufacturers of finished ceramiccomponents are listed in table 9-6. Kyocera, NGKSpark Plug, and Narumi China are leading pro-

ducers. Japanese manufacturers of finished ce-ramic components tend to offer products to morethan one end-use market; i.e., they are horizon-tally integrated.

A critical difference between Japan and theUnited States is the commitment of Japanesecommercial end users to incorporate ceramicsin current products. Examples are given in table9-7. In most cases, this commitment is made inspite of the fact that the ceramic component ismore expensive than the metal component itreplaces. For instance, the production cost of theceramic turbocharger rotor used in the NissanFairlady Z automobile is reportedly in the rangeof $60; by comparison, U.S. companies gener-ally feel that costs must fall below $15 per rotorbefore production would be considered.

Foreign Participation in theJapanese Market

Traditionally, corporate acquisitions within Ja-pan are rare. In fact, there is no simple way ofsaying “takeover” or “acquisition” in Japanese.

Table 9-5.—Major Japanese Powder Suppliers

Supplier Oxides Nitrides Carbides Other

Asahi Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XChichibu Cement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Xa

Daiichi Kigenso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XDenki Kagaku Kogyo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fuji Titanium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hitachi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hitachi Chemical Ceramics . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hitachi Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Japan New Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kawasaki Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XKyocera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XKyoritsu Ceramics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XMitsubishi Chemical ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mitsubishi Mining & Cement . . . . . . . . . . . . XMurata Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XNippon Kokan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Xa

Nippon Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Xa

Shin Nippon Kinzoku Kagaku. . . . . . . . . . . .Shinagawa Refractories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Showa Aluminum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XShowa Denko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Xa

Sumitomo Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XSumitomo Electric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XToray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Toyo Soda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XUbe Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

x

x

x

Xa

Xa

xxXa

x

x

x

x

Xa

x

x

Xa

xx

x

x

x

Xa

x

xXb

Xa

aProducts are under development.b Minor supplier of silicon nitride.

SOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced Materials,” a contractor report preparedfor OTA, Mar. 24, 1987,


Table 9-6.—Major Japanese Manufacturers ofFinished Ceramic Components

Asahi GlassAsahi OpticalFigaro EngineeringHitachiHitachi Chemical CeramicsHitachi MetalsKoh’a ChinaKoransha InsulatorsKurosaki RefractoriesKyoceraMatsushita Electronic ComponentsMitsubishi Heavy IndustriesMitsubishi MetalsNGK InsulatorsNGK Spark PlugNarumi ChinaNippon DensoNippon TungstenNoritakeShinagawa RefractoriesShowa DenkoSumitomo ElectricToshiba CeramicsToshiba TungaloySOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced

Materials,” a contractor report prepared for OTA, Mar. 24, 1987.

The Japanese word for it, “nottori,” also means“hi jacking.” Acquisition of a Japanese firm is con-sidered humiliating for the firm’s management.One exception is if a company wants to enter abusiness and it acquires a company with a declin-ing market position.

Overall, the Japanese Government is graduallymaking it easier for foreign firms to invest in Jap-anese companies. However, this is a recent de-velopment. Although no official statistics are avail-able, industry sources estimate that the numberof investments by foreign firms in Japanese com-panies is less than a dozen per year in all indus-tries.13 Initially, foreign investors take a minorityinterest, with the intent of increasing their shareover time.

Formation of joint ventures is increasing inpopularity within the Japanese advanced ceram-ics industry. Although it is most common thatboth partners are Japanese, some U.S. industrysources believe that joint ventures represent thebest means for foreign companies to participatein the Japanese market. Recently formed jointventures—including some involving foreigncorporations—are listed in Appendix 9-2.

Although not actually joint ventures, informalcollaboration among Japanese companies to de-velop ceramic products is common, particularlyin the automotive sector, as shown in table 9-8.

Licensing agreements involving ceramics com-panies are relatively uncommon in Japan. Those

13Strategic Analysis Inc., op. cit., 1987.

Table 9-7.—Major Japanese Users of Ceramic Parts or Components

End user Automotive Aerospace Biomedical Other a

Toyota Motors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nissan Motors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fuji Heavy Industries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Matsuda Motors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Isuzu Motors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. . . . . . . . . . . . .Kawasaki Heavy Industries. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Showa Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mitsubishi Electric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Asahi Optical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kyocera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Koransha Insulators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mitsubishi Mining & Cement . . . . . . . . . . . .Toray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Noritake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ARS Edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fujitsu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Toshiba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Matsushita Electric Components . . . . . . . .

Xb

xxxc

xc

Xb

xxx

Xb

xXb

Xb Xb

Xb Xb

Xb Xb

Xb

Xb

Xb

xXb

Xb

alncludes electronics and wear Parts.bManufactures ceramic components captively for these applications.cProducts under development.

SOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced Materials,” a contractor report preparedfor OTA, Mar, 24, 1987,

Ch. 9—international Business Trends “ 213

Table 9-8.—Collaborative Programs Between JapaneseAutomobile and Ceramics Companies

Automobile manufacturer Ceramics company Focus of program

Isuzu Motors Kyocera Diesel engine parts

Mitsubishi Motors Asahi Glass Auto partsNGK Insulators Rocker arms

Nissan Motors Hitachi Chemical Turbocharger rotorsNGK Spark Plug Turbocharger rotorsNGK Insulators Turbocharger rotors

Toyota Motors Toshiba Ermine partsSOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced Materials,” a contractor report prepared

for OTA, Mar, 24, 1987. -

identified primarily involve the processing of rawmaterials. Some recent licensing agreements areincluded in appendix 9-2. Technology exchangesthat are short of formal licensing agreements alsoexist between the following Japanese companiesand foreign companies: Toshiba and CumminsEngine Co. (USA); NGK Insulators and Cummins;and NGK Spark Plug and ICI (UK).


Japan has developed an international reputa-tion for the close cooperation in technology de-velopment that exists among government, acade-mia, economic institutions, and industry. Froma U.S. perspective, the Japanese system containsseveral unusual features, including: scientific andtechnological competence at the highest levelsof government and industry policymaking; amechanism for developing a national consensusamong government, industry, and academia asto technological goals; and a willingness of finan-cial institutions and industries to cooperate withthe government in achieving the consensus goals.

The role of the Japanese Government in ad-vanced materials development has been re-viewed recently. l4 15 Figure 9-1 shows the rela-tionships among the most important JapaneseGovernment agencies responsible for science andtechnology policy. The three principal agenciesinvolved in advanced ceramics R&D are MITI, theScience and Technology Agency (STA), and theMinistry of Education.

14National Materials Advisory Board, op. cit., 1984.15’’JTECH Panel Report on Advanced Materials in Japan,” JTECH-

TAR-8502, a contract study prepared for the National Science Foun-dation by Science Applications International Corp., May 1986.

A breakdown of government funding for bothstructural and electronic advanced ceramics in1983 and 1985 is presented in table 9-9. How-ever, these data, like other funding data typicallyreported by the Japanese Government, includeonly the costs of resources and capital equip-ment; they omit overhead and salary expenses.Such basic expenses normally account for onlyabout 20 percent of a typical U.S. governmentcontract. Therefore, to compare these figureswith similar U.S. figures, they should be scaledup by roughly a factor of five. According to theraw figures in table 9-9, MITI, STA, and the Min-istry of Education all spent roughly comparableamounts for a total of about $20 million in 1985.That would scale up to about $100 million whensalary and overhead expenses are added—roughly comparable to the estimatesof$100-125million in the United States.16

MITI reports that private and government fund-ing sources provide 79 percent and 21 percent,respectively, of the expenses for all R&D in Ja-pan. Although figures are not available for pri-vate sector ceramics R&D, industry sources re-port that the amount funded by private industryis much larger than that funded by government.Assuming that the ratio for all R&D holds for ce-ramics, this would put industry’s investment levelat about $400 million per year in Japan.

MITI’s primary thrust in advanced materials isthrough its Agency of Industrial Science andTechnology (AIST), which promotes industrialR&D to strengthen the country’s mining and man-ufacturing industries. AIST oversees the opera-

1 6 J o h n B . W a c h t m a n , op. c i t . , 1986.


Figure 9-1 .—Japanese Government Agencies Responsible for Science and Technology Policyt 9

Prime Minister

1

t L*

Ministry ofInternational Trade

and Industry(MITI)

4 1 &

n●

Ministryof Education

11 Ir 1 r

SOURCE: Adapted from Science Applications International Corp., JTECH Panel Report on Advanced Materials in Japan, a contractor study prepared for the NationalScience Foundation, May 1988.

tions of 16 national laboratories, with an annualbudget of $600 million in 1985. In 1981, MITI alsoinitiated the R&D Project on Basic Technologyfor Future Industries, a 10-year, $32 miliionproject to be carried out completely in privateindustry. This program involves extensive govern-ment/industry coordination and includes sevenprojects on advanced materials, among them oneon ceramics.17 In FY 1988, MITI is planning toinitiate an 8-year joint R&D project with Toyota,Nissan, Mitsubishi, Kyocera, and Isuzu to developa ceramic gas turbine engine. Development costsare expected to be 20 billion yen (about $138 mil-

17 National Materials Advisory Board, op. cit., 1984.

lion) .18 In addition, a 9-year, $105 million pro-gram, aimed at developing a stationary ceramicgas turbine for power generation, has also beenrequested to begin in fiscal year 1988.19

In addition to sponsoring ceramics R&D, MITIpromotes the use of new ceramics technologiesin industry. For instance, the Japan IndustrialTechnology Association (JITA), under MITI, pro-motes the transfer of technology from AIST lab-oratories to industry, and it serves as a clearinghouse for domestic and foreign technical infor-

‘8’’Deja Vu–Yet Again, ” Forbes, Nov. 16, 1987, p. 282.lgAccording t. information provided by Robert B. Schulz, U.S.

Department of Energy, November 1987.

Ch. 9—lnternational Business Trends ● 215

Table 9-9.—Japanese Government Funding forAdvanced Structural and Electronic Ceramicsa

Government source

Funding

($ mil l ion) b

Ministry of International Trade andIndustry:

R&D Project on Basic Technologyfor Future Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Laboratories. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Agency of Natural Resources and

Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Consumer Goods Industry Bureau. . .Other agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Science and Technology Agency:Research and Development Corp. of

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .National Institute for Research On

Inorganic Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ministry of Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1983

3.22.0

0.00.20.3

1.2

8.0

1.5

16.4

1985

3.52.3

0.80.10.6

1.6

8.8

1.6

19.3alncludes Only costs of resources and capital equipment. Does not includeoverhead and salary expenses.

bConstant 1985 dollars. 1 US$ = 200 Yenclncludes funds for all ceramics-related research, primarily advanced ceramics.

SOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of AdvancedMaterials, ” a contractor report prepared for OTA, Mar. 24, 1987,

mation. JITA also provides an advisory service onpatents. Private organizations that have been setup to license AIST patents and technology are theJapan Patent Information Center (JAPATIC) andthe Industrial Technology Promotion Association(ITPA), which are provided with the most prom-ising government patents.

MITI’s AIST also has control over disbursementof funds from the Japan Development Bank (JDB),a government financial institution that may makeloans to ventures sanctioned by the governmentat rates lower than market rates. Such interlock-ing of government, industry, and financial insti-tutions is a very important aspect of Japanese in-dustrial policy.

The STA has responsibility for developing andimplementing science policy directives receivedfrom the prime minister. These directives arebased on recommendations from the Council onScience and Technology and the Science Coun-cil of Japan, a cabinet-level advisory group. STAadministers six government laboratories, includ-ing the National Institute for Research on Inor-ganic Materials (N I RIM), a major center for ce-ramics research in Japan. N I RIM maintains anextensive visiting scientist program, to which re-

searchers from universities and private industryare temporarily transferred by their home insti-tutions.

Like MITI, STA promotes the use of advancedceramics technologies in industry. For instance,STA’s Japan Research and Development Corp.(JRDC), a nonprofit, quasi-governmental corpo-ration patterned after the National Research andDevelopment Corporation (NRDC) in the UnitedKingdom, is chartered to promote commercialexploitation of government and university re-search results. JRDC selects research results hav-ing good commercial potential and underwritesa large fraction of the selected private firm’s de-velopment costs in the form of interest-free loans.These loans are not repaid if the venture is notsuccessful. JRDC may also serve as a broker be-tween a government inventor or researcher anda small company desiring to commercialize theinvention or research result.

The Ministry of Education sponsors R&D activ-ities at universities and attempts to facilitate co-operation among universities. Formal consultingarrangements between industry and university re-searchers are not permitted. However, interac-tions among industry, university, and national lab-oratories are facilitated by personnel exchangeprograms. It is common for senior visiting scien-tists from industry to spend 2 or more years inresidence in university or government labora-tories while on full salary from their permanentemployers.20

Despite the careful attention to technology de-velopment and use embodied in the various gov-ernment agencies and policies described above,it is important to stress that by far the greater bur-den of Japanese ceramics R&D is shouldered byindustry. Japan has succeeded in developing anational consensus that ceramics technologies arethe way of the future, and Japanese industry hasmade a long-term commitment to the commer-cialization of these technologies. Particularly sig-nificant is the commitment of end user compa-nies, such as automobile companies, to

ZORobert j. Gottscha[l, “Basic Research in Ceramic and %?fTIi COn-

ductor Science at Selected Japanese Laboratories,” DOE/ER-0314,a trip report prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, March1987, p. 5.


incorporate ceramics in current products, eventhough it is not profitable to do so at present. Forexample, Toyota plans to produce an all-ceramicdiesel engine with injection molded, sintered sili-con nitride by 1991. It is anticipated that everypart will be proof tested, suggesting that this pro-duction will be very labor intensive.21 This “tech-nology push” strategy contrasts sharply with theapproach taken by U.S. end user companies,which are oriented toward return on investmentin a 3- to 5-year time frame.

Industry Associations

One recipient of MITI’s funds is the Japan FineCeramics Association (JFCA), established in 1982.Regular members of JFCA include more than 170suppliers of raw materials and finished compo-nents, as well as users of fine ceramics. JFCA’sobjective is to contribute to the development ofthe national economy by laying the foundationfor the advanced ceramics industry through ex-change of information, improvement and diffu-sion of technology, and diversification of appli-cations.

A national institute associated with JFCA, calledthe Japan Fine Ceramics Center (JFCC), was estab-lished in Nagoya in May 1985. JFCC promotesrelationships among universities, governmentagencies, and industries in Japan and through-out the world. It also integrates technical data-

21 Ibid.

bases involving ceramics, provides technicalknow-how, and develops standard methods fortesting and evaluating ceramics. Initially, the pri-vate sector contributed $40 million and local gov-ernment contributed $15 million to fund thecenter.

Western Europe

Industry Structure

Alcoa and ESK are the two largest manufac-turers of ceramic powders in Europe and accountfor about half of the European merchant market.Alcoa is the leading supplier of high-purity alu-mina; ESK is the leading supplier of various gradesof silicon carbide. Some companies—includingPhilips, Siemens, Norton, and MagnesiumElektron—manufacture powders for captive con-sumption of ceramic parts, often electronic com-ponents. Manufacturers also import ceramicpowders from Japan and the United States.

Overall, about 40 European companies man-ufacture ceramic parts for sale in the merchantmarket. Another dozen or so, mainly electroniccompanies, produce components for captiveconsumption. The 11 largest firms, listed in ta-ble 9-10, account for about 75 percent of the mer-chant market for ceramic parts, excludingimports.

A modest trend exists among powder suppliersto forward-integrate into the production of parts.

Table 9-10.–End-Use Markets Served by Major European Ceramics Suppliers in 1986

End-Use Market

Supplier Automotive Aerospace Biomedical Other a

Ceramiques et Composites (F) . . xCookson (UK) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xDesmarquest (F). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x xESK (FRG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xFeldmuehle (FRG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x xFriedrichsfeld (FRG) . . . . . . . . . . . x x xHaldenwanger (FRG) . . . . . . . . . . . xHoechst-CeramTec (FRG) . . . . . . . x x xHutschenreuter (FRG) . . . . . . . . . . xNorton, b (FRG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xSociete Europeene

Propulsion (F) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xStettner (FRG). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xalncludes electronic ceramics and other structural ceramics.bus. firm with manufacturing operations in West Germany.

SOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced Materials,” a contractor report preparedfor OTA, Mar. 24, 1987.


However, most major producers of finished ce-ramic components are not backward-integratedinto powders. A trend toward horizontal integra-tion also exists. Horizontal integration is oftenachieved through acquisitions of existing sup-pliers. A number of European companies, includ-ing Bayer (FRG), Feldmuehle (FRG), and Hoechst(FRG), have recently acquired other ceramicsbusinesses as part of a move toward horizontalintegration.

Acquisitions, joint ventures, and licensingagreements involving ceramics have becomesomewhat more common in recent years amongEuropean firms (see app. 9-3). For instance, onIyone acquisition took place in 1982, whereas 7took place in 1986. The product areas most oftenacquired were silicon carbide, silicon nitride, zir-conia, and other oxides.

Like acquisitions, the number of joint venturesinvolving European ceramics companies has in-creased significantly in the past several years. Al-though most joint venture partners were alreadyparticipating in the ceramics industry, many alsowere chemical companies, end users, or equip-ment suppliers. Almost half of joint ventures aretargeted at the electronic ceramics industry. Someof the most important recent joint ventures aregiven in appendix 9-3.

Although licensing agreements involving ce-ramics are still relatively uncommon in Europe,they are increasing in popularity, as shown in ap-pendix 9-3. Two companies, ASEA Cerama, aSwedish consortium, and Lucas-Cookson-Syalon,a British company, license ceramics technologyas an integral part of their marketing strategies.

Foreign Participation in theEuropean Market

Europe is now generally self-sufficient in keyraw materials and finished ceramic parts. How-ever, Japanese and U.S. suppliers still hold strongpositions in certain product categories, as shownin table 9-11. For example, the North Americansuppliers Alcoa, Reynolds, and Alcan remain ma-jor suppliers of alumina. High-purity silicon ni-trides from Japanese suppliers–especially ToyoSoda and Ube Industries–are increasinglypenetrating the European market. Finished struc-

tural ceramic parts are generally supplied byEuropean producers with little or no foreign par-ticipation, although U.S. and Japanese supplierspredominate in electronic ceramics.

The major Japanese and U.S. suppliers of pow-ders and finished ceramics to Europe are listedin table 9-12. Most Japanese suppliers merelyresell products through European sales offices.Although this is also a common marketing ap-proach used by U.S. companies, several U.S.firms have also established manufacturing facil-ities in Europe.

European Community Programs

In the early 1980s, the European Community(EC) perceived a greater need for a planned re-search effort based on a common research pol-icy among participating nations. The EC cited tworeasons for this need. First, it was aware of a tech-nology lag in many areas versus its U.S. and Jap-anese competitors. Second, the EC felt that thefragmented and overlapping research efforts ofindustrial countries could be unified and har-monized by the creation of a common researchstrategy.

The EC began funding research on ceramicsaround 1982. Since that time, the EC has fundedresearch through the program on Technical Cer-amics (1 982-85), the Basic Research in IndustrialTechnologies for Europe (B RITE) Program (1 985-88) and the European Research in Advanced Ma-terials (EURAM) Program (1986-89). In these pro-grams, proposals were requested in targetedareas. The EC is rapidly increasing research anddevelopment funding for ceramic programs,From negligible involvement in 1982, the ECspent about $4 million through 1985. About $20million is committed for ceramic projects in theBRITE and EURAM programs.22

in the EC’s second Framework Program on Sci-ence and Technology (1 987-91), with a total ap-proved budget of $5.4 billion, the budget line forscience and technology of all advanced materi-als is expected to be about $220 million .23 EC

ZZAccording to information supplied by Wim van Deelen, Dele-

gation of the Commission of the European Communities, Wash-ington, DC, August 1987.

*3 I bid.


Table 9-11 .—Impact of Foreign Suppliers on theWestern European Advanced Ceramics Market

Dominant source

Product Europe United States Japan

Powders:Oxides:

Alumina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xZirconia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xRare earths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Carbides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xNitrides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xTitanates a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Titanium diboride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

xx

Finished parts:Automotive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xAerospace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xBiomedical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xElectronics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xaPrimarily barium and Strontium.

SOURCE: Strategic Analysis, inc. “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced Materials," a contractor report preparedfor OTA, Mar. 24, 1987.

Table 9-12.—Major Japanese and U.S. Suppliers of Powders and Finished Ceramics to Western Europe

Product Business activity

Company Powders Finished products Manufacturing Sales JV

Japanese:Figaro Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xKyocera. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x xMatsushita Electronic Components . . . x xMurata Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xNarumi China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xShowa Denko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X xToyo Soda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X xUbe lndustries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X x

x

xx

x

u s :Alcoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XAX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xBrush-Wellman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xCabot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xCeradyne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xCoors Ceramics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xDuramic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X xGTE Sylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X xNorton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xSOHIO Engineered Materials . . . . . . . . . x xTAM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X xBusiness activity code:

Manufacturing = European manufacturing operationSales = Sales network onlyJV = Joint venture program with Western European company.

SOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc. “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced Materials,” a contractor report prepared for OTA, Mar. 24, 1987.

.—


funding for ceramics research goes to numerousenterprises and research organizations through-out the Community.

National Programs24

European government spending on nationalR&D programs for advanced ceramics is collec-tively estimated at about $220 million in 1985,as summarized in table 9-13. Recipients of thesefunds included research centers, universities, andprivate industry. West Germany, France, and theUnited Kingdom accounted for about 85 percentof the total. The following are some brief exam-ples of national programs.

West Germany.– Total government funding foradvanced ceramics R&D is estimated at about $75million in 1985. The Ministry for Research andTechnology (BMFT) has launched a 10-year, $440million research program for new materials, in-cluding high-temperature metals, new polymers,powder metallurgy, and ceramics. West Germanyis considered to be the European leader in struc-tural ceramics, with over 50 companies activelyinvolved; leading companies are Feldmuehle,Friedrichsfeld, and ESK.

France.–The French Government provided$64 million for advanced ceramics research in

zqBUdget figures in this section are drawn from Strategic Analy-sis, Inc., op. cit., 1987, unless otherwise specified.

Table 9-13.-European Government Spending onNational R&D Programs for Ceramics in 1985a

GovernmentExpenditures

Country ($ million)

West Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Netherlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Italy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

756451

7465b

53

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $220a lncludes government funding for materials, office expenses (such as salaries),

facilities, research centers, universities, and private industry.b lncludes Neoceram capital of $4 million (see text).c lncludes Denmark, Ireland, Norway, and Switzerland.SOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced

Materials, ” a contractor report prepared for OTA, Mar. 24, 1987.

Table 9.14.—French Government Fundingfor Ceramics Research, 1985

Funding PercentOrganization ($ million) of total

National Center for ScientificResearch (CNRS) . . . . . . . . . . . . $20.0 31

Commission on Atomic Energy(CEA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1 20

Ministry of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5 15Ministry of Research and

Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 12Ministry of Education . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 10Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

SOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of AdvancedMaterials,” a contractor report prepared for OTA, Mar. 24, 1987,

1985, as broken out in table 9-14. About 30 per-cent of the research was carried out in the Na-tional Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) inMeudon. French companies have developed astrong position in ceramic composite technology.

United Kingdom. –Annual government spend-ing for ceramics is estimated at $51 million. TheUnited Kingdom has two major ceramics pro-grams underway: Ceramic Applications forReciprocating Engines (CARE), and AdvancedCeramics for Turbines (ACT). These are jointlyfunded by government and industry at a level ofabout $9 million over four years.

Sweden.–Swedish Government spending onadvanced ceramics in 1985 is estimated at around$7 million. A significant fraction of Swedish ce-ramics research is carried out at the Swedish Sili-cate Research institute (SSRI) in Goteborg, whichis sponsored by some 30 Swedish companies. In1986, the Institute operated on a budget of about$1 million and was engaged in cooperative workwith Chalmers University of Technology (also inGoteborg) and the Japanese Government Indus-trial Research Institutes (GIRI) in Nagoya andKyushu. SSRI and GIRI formed a 3-year cooper-ative research program involving silicon nitrideand sialon.

The leading Swedish ceramics corporation isASEA Cerama, a 1982 joint venture of six Swed-ish companies, which was formed to promote ap-plications of ceramic parts made by hot isostaticpressing (HIP). ASEA is the world leader in HIPequipment and technology.


Netherlands.–Research funding for advancedceramics by the Dutch government dates from1983 when, with support from the Departmentof Industry, a task force of scientists and indus-try representatives created the lnnovation-Oriented Research Program–Technical Ceramics(IOP-TK). In 1984, 14 projects were selected inceramic powder production and fabrication tech-nologies, and in 1985 the IOP-TK was funded atabout $9 million over 8 years. Presently, about$4.1 million has been approved over the next 4years for 10 projects.

Italy.–The Italian Government is reportedly inthe process of approving a $50 million program

for advanced materials, of which about $25 mil-lion is scheduled to be reserved for advanced ce-ramics.

Belgium.–Government-sponsored R&D in ad-vanced ceramics is estimated at about $1.5 mil-lion annually, mainly administered by the insti-tute for the Encouragement of Scientific Researchin Industry and Agriculture (IRSIA). The regionalWalloon government has recently donated $4million in starting capital for Neoceram, a jointventure of five Belgian partners.

POLYMER MATRIX COMPOSITESAdvanced polymer matrix composites

(PMCs)–often referred to simply as advancedcomposites—are usually defined as those com-posites reinforced with continuous fibers havingproperties comparable to S-glass (high-stiffnessglass) or better, and using resins with propertiescomparable to epoxies or better. Usually ex-cluded are E-glass-reinforced polyester or vinyl-ester matrices, which constitute over 85 percentof all PMCs, as indicated in chapter 3.25 Advancedcomposites are the topic of this section.

The advanced composites industry can be con-ceptualized as having four distinct levels, as in-dicated in figure 9-2. These are: producers ofbasic materials such as resins and fibers; prepreg-gers; shapes producers; and end users. At the pri-mary level are firms producing the polymer re-sins for the matrix and fibers for reinforcement.Resins, as unformulated monomers, and fibers,in the form of yarn or fabric, are purchased bymanufacturers of prepregs. Prepreggers typicallyformulate a resin system and combine it with vari-ous reinforcing fibers to produce prepregs in theform of woven fabric, unidirectional tape, andfilament tow. Prepregs are the principal startingmaterials in fabricating composite structures. The

25However, due to their lower cost, E-glass composites are themost likely materials to be used in automotive body structures, asindicated in ch. 7. Given the sophisticated design and manufac-turing processes, as well as the high strength and reliability requiredin automotive structural applications, it would seem appropriateto include such PMCs in the category of advanced composites.

merchant market for prepregs is large and fairlywell-defined. Shapes or structures are the nextlevel of the composite industry. Fabricated com-posite shapes may be made captively for incor-poration into other products, or sold on the mer-chant market to end users in various industries.

The United States is the largest producer andconsumer of advanced composites in the world.Much of the pioneering work on these materialswas conducted in the United States, and domes-tic suppliers rank among the most important com-panies in the worldwide business. In 1985, thetotal value of advanced composites structuresproduced in the United States, Western Europe,and Japan was approximately $2 billion. Of this,the United States alone accounted for nearly two-thirds, as shown in table 9-15. European produc-tion was less than half this size, although it wassimilar to the U.S. in its emphasis on aerospaceend uses. Japan ranked a distant third in overallproduction, with the orientation of its advancedcomposites industry toward the recreational mar-ket. The relative composition of these three mar-kets is broken out by end use in table 9-16.

United States

Industry Structure

The structure of the U.S. advanced compos-ites industry is largely a result of its orientationtoward aerospace applications. Segmentation has


Baseresin

producers

Figure 9-2.–Structure of the Advanced Composites Industry

14

Fabricmanufacturers weavers

Prepreggers

● -+

Shapesproducers

1 J1

1 I

1

Automotive Aerospace Biomedical Constructlon Other9 f“ s

The advanced composites industry has four primary levels: resin and fiber producers; prepreggers; shapes producers;and end users.

SOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced Materials, ” a contractor report prepared for OTA, Mar. 24, 1987.

Table 9.15.—Production Value of AdvancedComposite Structures, 1985

Sales PercentRegional market ($ millions)a of total

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,350 64Western Europe. . . . . . . . . . 550 26Japan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2 , % 100aValue of finished structures.

SOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of AdvancedMaterials,” a contractor report prepared for OTA, Mar. 24, 1987.

largely occurred along product lines (fibers, re-sins, prepregs, and shapes). Other important in-dustry characteristics include limited productionvolumes and a cost structure commensurate withthe high value of the end uses.

Hercules, Hexcel, Fiberite, and Boeing are themost important companies in the U.S. compos-ites industry. All possess a strong orientationtoward the aerospace industry, the largest andmost technology-driven market segment. TheU.S. market for finished composite structures in1985 was valued at approximately $1.4 billion,of which about half was consumed by the aero-space industry, as indicated in table 9-16.

The structure of the advanced composites in-dustry is fairly complex, with significant overlapamong the activities of individual firms. Compa-nies such as HercuIes, for instance, produce car-bon fiber, prepregs, and finished shapes for themerchant market, and use them captively as well.


Table 9-16.—Breakdown of Regionai Markets forAdvanced Composites by End Use, 1986

End use percentage

Region Aerospace Industrialb Recreational

United States . . . . . 50 25 25Western Europe . . . 56 26 18Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 35 55aBased on value of fabricated components.blncludes automotive, medical, machinery, and non-aerospace defense appli-cations.


End users such as Boeing captively produce com-posite shapes from prepregs and use them incommercial and military aircraft. The businessactivities of key participants in the U.S. advancedcomposites industry in 1986 are summarized intable 9-17.

The following is a discussion of key companiesin the various levels of the advanced compositesindustry, including market share and extent ofvertical integration

Resin Suppliers. –The suppliers of resins for ad-vanced composites are mainly large, diversified

chemical and industrial product manufacturersthat produce large quantities of plastics for a va-riety of end-use markets. Unformulated resins go-ing to the advanced composites market are spe-cialty products that typically account for only asmall amount of each supplier’s resin sales.

Ciba-Geigy, Shell, and Dow Chemical controlalmost two-thirds of the U.S. resin market for ad-vanced composites. These three suppliers are ep-oxy producers that dominate resin sales for allapplications worldwide. Leading suppliers of ther-moplastic resins are ICI, Amoco, and Phillips. Alist of the most important suppliers of base resinsby product type is shown in table 9-18.

Fiber Suppliers.– U.S. consumption of fibersfor advanced composites totaled over 7 millionpounds in 1985. Graphite fibers alone accountedfor nearly half of the total amount by weight, andalmost two-thirds of the dollar value. Aramidfibers ranked second, with over 20 percent of theweight and value. S-2 glass fibers accounted for25 percent of the total consumption by weight,but only 10 percent of the total value. The re-

Table 9-17.—Participation of Key Firms in theU.S. Advanced Composites industry, 1986

Advanced material producta

Company Base resins Fibers Prepregs Shapes

American Cyanamid . . . . . . . . . xAmoco Performance

Products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x m mAvco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m m xBASF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x mBoeing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xCiba-Geigy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x mDow Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xDu Pont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x m mFerro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xGrumman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xHercules. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x xHexcel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x mHITCO ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m x xHysol Grafil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x m mICl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xICI Fiberite. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xLockheed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xLTV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xMcDonnell Douglas . . . . . . . . . xNorthrop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xPhillips 66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x m mRohr Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . xShell Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . xUnited Technologies . . . . . . . . xax = major product; m = minor product.

SOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced Materials,” a contractor report preparedfor OTA, Mar. 24, 1987.

Ch. 9–International Business Trends “ 223

Table 9-18.—Major Suppliers of Base Resins forAdvanced Composites in the United States, 1986

Table 9-19.—Major Fiber Suppliers in theUnited States, 1986

Type of resin Supplier

Bismaleimide

Epoxy

Phenolic

Polyester

Polyether sulfone (PES)

Polyetheretherketone (PEEK)

Polyimide

Polyphenylene sulfide (PPS)

Poly (amide-imide)

Vinylester

CelaneseCiba-GeigyDow Chemical

CelaneseCiba-GeigyDow ChemicalShell

MonsantoReichhold

AshlandFreemanPPGReichhold

IClIClDu Pont

Phillips

Amoco

AshlandDow ChemicalReichhold


maining volume was made up of specializedfibers, such as boron, ceramic, and other poly-mers, which collectively accounted for onlyabout 1 percent of the total weight of fiber rein-forcements.

Nine firms supply carbon fiber for advancedpolymer composites in the United States, as in-dicated in table 9-19. The top three suppliers,Hercules, Amoco, and BASF, together accountfor approximately 85 percent of the total market.Hercules remains the largest supplier with a mar-ket share of over one-third. Amoco, which ac-quired the carbon fiber business of Union Car-bide in 1986, is the second largest firm. Amocois currently the only U.S. company capable ofproducing the important polyacrylonitrile (PAN)precursor for carbon fiber production; currently,100 percent of PAN fiber precursor used by themilitary is imported from Japan and the UnitedKingdom. Amoco is currently in the process ofqualifying its PAN-based fibers for military use.The third largest firm supplying carbon fiber isBASF, a West German company that purchasedthe Celion carbon fiber business from Celanese.Despite worldwide overcapacity for carbon fiber,DoD’s interest in securing stable domestic

Aramid Du PontBoron AvcoCarbon (PAN)a Amoco

AvcoBASFFiber MaterialsGreat Lakes CarbonHerculesHITCOHysol-GrafilStackpole

Carbon (Pitch) AmocoAshland

Carbon (Rayon) AmocoHITCOPolycarbon

Glass Owens-CorningaPAN = polyacrylonitrile precursor.


sources of both fiber and PAN precursor hasprompted the planning of new facilities in theUnited States.

Du Pont is currently the only U.S. producer ofaramid fibers. In addition, through its acquisitionof Exxon’s Materials Division, Du Pont is mak-ing preliminary moves toward supplying pitch-based carbon fibers as well. Owens-CorningFiberglas is the only U.S. producer of high-performance glass for composites. A number ofother firms, including Avco, Fiber Materials, andHysol-Grafil, also produce various other fibers forreinforcement.

Prepreg Suppliers.– U.S. consumption of ad-vanced composites prepregs totaled over 3,000metric tons in 1985. High-performance graphitefiber prepregs accounted for about 40 percentof total use, followed by glass fiber prepregs withslightly over 30 percent. Aramid fiber-basedprepregs contributed an additional 27 percent oftotal consumption, with the remainder made upof specialty prepregs of boron, quartz, or otherfibers.

Overall, it is estimated that more than 80 per-cent of U.S. sales of prepregs are to the merchantmarket. Few major shapes producers, such aslarge aerospace firms, have perceived sufficientbenefits to warrant internal manufacture ofprepregs.


Suppliers of prepregs are generally large, diver-sified chemical and industrial product manufac-turers that have developed technology and ex-pertise in advanced composites. Eight suppliersaccount for approximately 90 percent of the mar-ket. The three largest firms–Fiberite, Hercules,and Hexcel—together account for about two-thirds of merchant prepreg sales, followed byCiba-Geigy, Narmco, HITCO, American Cyan-amid, and Ferro.

Shape Suppliers and End Users. -Roughly esti-mated, the U.S. market for aerospace compos-ite structures was valued at about $650 millionin 1985. The majority, about 60 percent, of com-posite shapes were manufactured captively by themajor U.S. aircraft firms and prime military con-tractors. The remaining 40 percent was dividedamong a number of large and small subcontrac-tors that produce parts for merchant sale.

Outsourcing for composite shapes tends to bemore common among manufacturers of civilianaircraft. Major airframe producers such as Boe-ing rely heavily on merchant fabricators or sub-contractors to fabricate composite forms. In manycases, outsourcing for composite parts relates tolarger marketing factors, particularly promotingforeign sales of finished aircraft to countrieswhere subcontractors operate. As a result of such“offset” agreements, subcontractors in Japan(Fuji), Spain (CASA), and Italy (Aeritalia) areamong those exporting major quantities of fabri-cated aircraft structures to the United States.

Captive fabrication tends to occur more fre-quently among the major military contractors.Firms such as McDonnell-Douglas, General Dy-namics, Grumman, and Northrop, for instance,are virtually self-sufficient in supplying their owncomposites needs. In addition, LTV, Grumman,and Northrop also fabricate structures for otherfirms.

Integration. –Greater consolidation and in-creased integration have been market character-istics of the U.S. advanced composites industryover the past few years. In some respects, thepoor financial performance of the industry as awhole has played a part in both trends. Many ofthe advantages of forward integration relate tolower raw material costs and better coordination

of technologies across product categories. Per-haps the greatest single motivation for this ten-dency is the desire to move into more profitableproduct categories. The carbon fiber business, forinstance, has demonstrated poor financial per-formance compared with either prepregs or fabri-cation.

Of the three areas, fabrication of compositestructures provides the greatest returns in the ad-vanced composite industry. Examples of recentmoves toward forward integration among U. S.-based suppliers are shown in table 9-20. Her-cules, perhaps the most significant player in themarket, is vertically integrated from raw materi-als to final shapes. The firm has long had a com-petitive advantage in the carbon fiber businessdue to its position as an important military con-tractor and merchant composite fabricator. Ri-val suppliers, BASF and Amoco, have no suchreliable market to support their carbon fiber oper-ations.

Recently, Boeing Technologies created a stir inthe industry by announcing an agreement withNikkiso (Japan) to license production technologyfor carbon fiber. While Boeing has a pilot plantunder construction, few in the industry believethis move signals Boeing’s intentions to eliminateoutsourcing of raw materials. Boeing contendsthat the agreement is nothing more than an out-growth of the company’s longstanding interestin internal materials research.

Acquisitions. —Since 1984, there have been anincreasing number of significant acquisitions andconsolidations within the advanced compositesindustry. Some of the more notable are listed inAppendix 9-4. To a large extent, these acquisi-tions embody a growing investment in compos-

Table 9-20.-Recent Moves Toward ForwardIntegration Among U.S.-Based Advanced

Composites Suppliers

Manufacturing capability

Company Original position Integration

Amoco. . . . . . . . . . Resins, fibers PrepregsDu Pont. . . . . . . . . Fibers Prepregs, shapesPhillips . . . . . . . . . Resins, prepregs ShapesSOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced


Ch. 9–International Business Trends w 225

ites by large, diversified chemical and industrialfirms. overall, the composites industry has notproven to be very profitable for its participants.The industry’s greatest returns are thought to liein the long term as truly large volume applica-tions are commercialized. Acquisitions representa long-range investment that is most easily madeby larger, diversified companies.

Joint Ventures.– The rationale for joint ven-tures among firms in the advanced compositesindustry is heavily influenced by issues of mar-keting and technology. In the case of marketing,joint ventures have provided a means for U.S.firms to assume a local identity when participat-ing in foreign markets.

in the case of technology, the joint venture isintended to provide technological synergies be-tween firms with different strengths. Hercules, forinstance, recently teamed with biomedical im-plant maker Biomet to develop and market or-thopedic implants. Hysol-Grafil was formed withthe intention of mating Courtaulds’ experiencein carbon fibers with Dexter’s resin technology.In appendix 9-4 are listed recent joint venturesamong firms in the advanced composites in-dustry.

Licensing Agreements. –The licensing of basictechnology from foreign firms has been a char-acteristic of the U.S. composite industry since itsinception. The basic process for the productionof carbon fibers was imported by major U.S. pro-ducers from firms such as Toho Rayon, Toray,and Courtaulds. Two of these licensing agree-ments remain in effect. In other areas, licensingis an important mechanism for the transfer of pro-duction and distribution rights for finished prod-ucts both into and outside of the United States.Appendix 9-4 gives some of the more prominentlicensing agreements in effect today.

Foreign Participation in the U.S. Market

The advanced composites industry has becomea more international business and one less dom-inated by U.S. firms. The past several years haveseen a dramatic increase in the activity of Euro-pean firms in the United States. Courtaulds, BASF,ICI, and Ciba-Geigy, for instance, now rankamong the major participants in the U.S. market

as a result of joint venture and acquisition activ-ity. In terms of market share, foreign-owned ma-terials firms now control 25 percent of the U.S.resin market, 50 percent of prepreg sales, andover 20 percent of the carbon fiber market. Theforeign share of the finished structure businessis much smaller.

Several motivations appear to be behind theincreased involvement of foreign firms in the U.S.market. The most obvious is that the U.S. mar-ket is the largest such market in the world, andis likely to grow rapidly, particularly on the mili-tary side. As military use grows, so will the em-phasis on U.S.-based suppliers. Many of the ac-quisitions of U.S. firms by large Europeanconglomerates are evidence of a faith in the long-term viability of the industry by those with suffi-cient resources to ride out the current lean times.

The transfer of technology from U.S. operationsback to Europe is also an incentive for foreignparticipation. In many ways, the European com-posites market can be viewed as a smaller ver-sion of the U.S. market. A strong defense andaerospace orientation is coupled with an equallystrong emphasis on local sourcing for raw mate-rials and prepregs. The growth of the Europeancommercial aircraft industry and the potential forchanneling composite technology into the au-tomotive industry are also important consider-ations.

Although Japanese fiber manufacturers holdsome of the best production technology for car-bon fiber in the world, the activity of Japanesefirms in the U.S. has been largely confined tolicensing and technology agreements with U.S.firms. The provisions of these agreements haveseverely limited direct Japanese participation inthe U.S. market. As a result, two of the world’slargest carbon fiber producers, Toray and TohoRayon, currently have a very minor role in thelargest market for fibers. This situation leads manyU.S. observers to suggest that the Japanese willbe forced to reassess their posture toward theUnited States in the near future.

Sources in the U.S. industry point out that theabsence of Japanese suppliers from the U.S. mar-ket is a major disadvantage for Japanese firms be-cause of their lack of proximity to important tech-


nological developments. With leading-edgeresearch in advanced composites orientedtoward military applications, Japanese fiber firmsare several steps removed from key technologi-cal trends and in serious danger of losing theirleadership position in fiber technology. This con-dition is worsened by the absence of any signifi-cant Japanese market for military or aerospaceproducts.

There are vague indications of how Japaneseparticipation is likely to change in the future.Some speculate that to support massive invest-ments in technology and productive capacity athome, Japanese firms will break prior agreementsand begin selling carbon fiber directly in theUnited States. In this case, it is envisioned thatthe Japanese may team with one or more of themajor prepreggers that lack captive fiber technol-ogy. A second scenario holds that the Japanesewill follow the lead of many European firms byacquiring a U.S. firm. In this case, a likely targetwould be one of the few remaining independ-ent prepreg firms.

In the longer term, there are predictions thatother Asian countries, such as South Korea, maybecome active in furnishing fiber to the U.S. mar-ket. Such countries are envisioned as competingdirectly with the Japanese in supplying inexpen-sive, lower performance fibers for cost-sensitiveapplications such as the automotive or construc-tion industries.


Historically, the U.S. advanced composites in-dustry has been driven by DoD, particularly foraircraft and space applications. To a great extent,this remains true today. DoD sponsored over 70percent of Federal PMC R&D in 1986 (see ch. 3),and this proportion is expected to increase in thefuture, fueled by the need for lighter, stronger ma-terials for new weapons systems such as the Ad-vanced Tactical Fighter, the Strategic DefenseInitiative, the Stealth bomber, and the LHX heli-copter. In addition, use of composites is expectedto expand in military ground vehicles, surfaceships, and submarines.

Consistent with the industry’s military orienta-tion, most of the policy issues of greatest concern

to the industry revolve around defense-relatedregulations and policies, such as export controlson composite products and technology, domes-tic sourcing of key raw materials, and militaryprocurement programs (see ch. 11).

Industry Associations andProfessional Societies

A variety of professional societies and organi-zations conduct meetings on advanced compos-ites and support the industry. These include theSociety of the Plastics Industry (SPI), the Societyfor the Advancement of Materials Processes andEngineering (SAMPE), ASM International, and theSociety of Automotive Engineers (SAE). Recently,a trade association called the Suppliers of Ad-vanced Composite Materials Association(SACMA) was formed to address common con-cerns of composites suppliers. A list of SACMAmembers is given in table 9-21. SACMA has been

Table 9-21.—Members of the Suppliers of AdvancedComposite Materials Association (SACMA)

Member Company

Allied Corp.American Cyanamid Co.Amoco Performance ProductsAsahi Nippon Carbon Fiber Co.Ashland Petroleum Co.Celion Carbon FibersCiba-Geigy Corp.Dow ChemicalDow Corning Corp.E.l. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.Enka AmericaFerro Corp.Fortafil Fibers, Inc.Hercules, Inc.Hexcel Corp.Hysol Grafil Co.ICI FiberiteMitsubishi Rayon AmericaNarmco MaterialsPhillips 66 Co.Rhone-Poulenc, Inc.RK Carbon FibersShell Chemical Co.Teijin America, Inc.Textile Products, Inc.3M Co.Toho Rayon Co.Toray IndustriesTPC (Unit of BASF)U.S. Polymeric, Inc.Xerkon Co.SOURCE: Suppliers of Advanced Composite Materials Association.

Ch. 9—international Business Trends ● 227

active in addressing health issues, standardiza-tion of composites, export controls, and domes-tic sourcing requirements of DoD. Consistentwith the defense/aerospace orientation of thecomposites industry today, SACMA is primarilyconcerned with the defense market, and mem-bers consider commercial markets, such as au-tomotive, to be of secondary importance.

Japan

The Japanese advanced composites industrywas initiated to supply the aircraft and space in-dustries of the United States. Since that time,however, most of the Japanese domestic growthhas been in the recreational markets. This em-phasis differs greatly from the U.S. market, whichis primarily oriented toward defense applications.The composition of the Japanese advanced com-posites market is currently 55 percent recrea-tional, 35 percent industrial, and 10 percent aero-space (see table 9-1 6).

Unlike many end uses, the recreation indus-try frequently accepts higher cost and higherquality materials because the customer is willingto pay a premium for these products. However,Japan is already starting to lose its market sharein advanced composites for sporting goods toSouth Korea.26

Industry Structure

Resin Suppliers.– In Japan, most suppliers ofbase resins for advanced composites are leadingchemical companies. Resins for advanced com-posites comprise a small fraction of total produc-tion. Yuka Shell Epoxy, Mitsui Petrochemical, andAsahi Chemical together hold about 70 percentof the Japanese market for resins used in ad-vanced composites. These manufacturers pro-duce epoxy, the principal matrix material. A listof selected suppliers of base resins by producttype is given in table 9-22.

Fiber Suppliers. –Japanese consumption offibers for advanced composites totaled over 2 mil-

Zbpresentation by R.A. Fasth, Kline & C o . , “ A d v a n c e d p o l y m e r

Composites: The Challenges for the Future, ” at the Conference onEmerging Technologies in Materials, sponsored by the AmericanInstitute of Chemical Engineers, Minneapolis, MN, Aug. 18-20, 1987.

Table 9.22.—Major Suppliers of Base Resins forAdvanced Composites in Japan

Resin type Supplier

Bismaleimide-triazinepolyimide

Epoxy

Polyamide

Polyester

Polyether sulfone (PES)

Polyetheretherketone(PEEK)

Polyphenylene sulfide(PPS)

Vinylester phenol

Mitsubishi Chemical (Amoco)a

Mitsubishi Gas ChemicalNippon Polyimide (Rhone-

Poulenc-MitsuiPetrochemical) b

Toray

Asahi-Ciba (Asahi Chemical-Ciba-Geigy) b

Mitsui PetrochemicalSumitomo ChemicalYuka Shell Epoxy

Asahi ChemicalMitsubishi ChemicalToray

Dai NipponMitsui ToatsuSumitomo Chemical

IClMitsui Toatsu (lCl)a

Sumitomo Chemical (lCl)a

IClMitsui Toatsu (lCl)a

Sumitomo Chemical (lCl)a

Kureha ChemicalTohto KaseiToray-Phillips b

Toso Susteel

Dow ChemicalaResin produced by company in parenthesis and marketed by the Japanesecompany.bJoint venture partners.


lion pounds in 1985. Graphite fibers accountedfor about two-thirds of domestic consumption.Aramid fibers were second, with over one-quarterof the total weight. The remaining volume, lessthan 10 percent of the total, was made up of spe-cialized fibers, including glass, boron, ceramics,and miscellaneous others. Selected Japanese sup-pliers of fibers for advanced composites are givenin table 9-23.

Five Japanese firms supply carbon fibers, andsix supply carbon fiber precursor (PAN). To-gether, the top two suppliers, Toray and TohoRayon, account for 80 percent of the total pro-duction. The percentage of export production forboth companies is as high as 60 percent or more.Toho Rayon exports large quantities of precur-sor to firms in the United States, while Toray has


Table 9-23.—Major Fiber Suppliers in Japan, 1986

Fiber type Supplier

Alumina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sumika-HerculesAramid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toray

TeijinBoron. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vacuum MetallurgicalCarbon, a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toray

Toho RayonAsahi Nippon CarbonMitsubishi RayonNikkiso

Carbon b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kureha ChemicalMitsubishi Chemical

Ceramic c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UbeGlass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NittoboPAN precursor . . . . . . . . . . . Sumika-HerculesPolyethylene. . . . . . . . . . . . . MitsuiSilicon Carbide . . . . . . . . . . Nippon CarbonaPAN-based (PAN = polyacrylonitrile).bPitch-based.cCeramic fiber consisting of titanium, silicon carbide, and oxygen.


licensed precursor technology to Amoco. TohoRayon also exports carbon fiber to SoutheastAsian countries, including Taiwan and HongKong, for sporting goods applications. The posi-tion of leader between the two firms frequentlyalternates whenever one firm expands its produc-tion facilities. Toray also supplies aramid fibers,which are imported into Japan through DuPont-Toray.

Prepreg Suppliers.–In Japan, fiber manufac-turers or their affiliates generally produceprepregs for fabricating advanced composites,and all current carbon fiber manufacturers sellprepregs as well as carbon fiber. Sakai Compos-ite and Toho Rayon are the largest prepreggers,followed by Asahi Composite and Mitsubishi

Rayon. Sakai Composite, a subsidiary of Toray,manufactures prepregs mainly for sporting goodapplications. The ranking of prepreggers isroughly the same as that of fiber suppliers be-cause they manufacture prepregs using their ownmaterials. Unlike carbon fiber manufacturers,which are largely Japanese entities (with the prin-cipal exception of Sumika-Hercules), many of theprepreg and shapes suppliers in Japan are jointventures with foreign firms. They include AsahiComposites, Kasei Fiberite, Dia-HITCO Compos-ites, and Toho Badische. The activities of the mostimportant prepreggers are given in table 9-24.

Kasei-Fiberite is a joint venture between Mit-subishi Chemical and Fiberite. Mitsubishi Chem-ical has begun to produce pitch-based carbonfibers from which it plans to manufactureprepregs. These pitch-based carbon fibers are notthe general purpose types that Kureha Chemicalmanufactures; rather, they are high-strength fiberswhose specifications are comparable to PAN-based carbon fiber.

A very important development in the compos-ites business will be the commercialization oflow-cost, pitch-based carbon fibers. Manysources in both Japan and the United States ex-pect the availability of these low-cost fibers toaccelerate the use of composites in cost-sensitiveapplications such as automobiles and construc-tion. pitch fiber-reinforced concrete has alreadybeen used for curtain walls in buildings inTokyo.27 This material is lighter and tougher than

27’’ Panels Use Carbon Fibers,” Engineering News Record, Aug.1, 1985.

Table 9-24.–Participation of Major Prepreg Suppliers in the Japanese Market, 1986

Business activity

Supplier Resins Fibers Prepregs Shapes

Asahi Composite . . . . . . . . . . . x xHitachi Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . x xKasei Fiberite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xMitsubishi Rayon . . . . . . . . . . . x x xNitto Electric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xSakai Composite (Toray) . . . . . X a Xa x Xa

Somar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xSumika-Hercules. . . . . . . . . . . . x xToho Rayon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x xaProduced by Toray.

SOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced Materials,” a contractor report preparedfor OTA, Mar, 24, 1987.

Ch. 9—lnternational Business Trends ● 229

ordinary concrete, permitting the use of less struc-tural steel and lower construction costs.

Shape Suppliers and End Users.–Japanesecompanies that manufacture finished compositecomponents include Fuji Heavy Industries, Mit-subishi Heavy Industries, Kawasaki Heavy indus-tries, Nikkiso, and Tenryu Kogyo in the aerospacesector, and Somar and Nitto Electric in the recre-ation industry, End users with a major demandfor composite structures in the recreation indus-try are R.K. Mizuno and Nippon Gakki (Yamaha);those in the automotive industry are Toyota andNissan. Major end users for advanced compos-ites in these and other fields are shown in table9-25.

Foreign Participation in theJapanese Market

There are not many foreign manufacturers thathave penetrated the Japanese advanced compos-ites market. All of those that have succeeded havedone so by establishing joint ventures with Japa-nese companies, such as Sumika-Hercules, AsahiComposite (Asahi Chemical and Ciba-Geigy), andKasei Fiberite. Recent joint ventures are given inappendix 9-5. As indicated above, joint ventures

are particularly common among prepreggers andshape fabricators.

Companies that recently formed licensingagreements with Japanese companies are shownin appendix 9-5. Many of these involve raw ma-terials manufacture in which Japanese companieshave supplied carbon fiber production technol-ogy to composites firms around the world.


In contrast to the situation with ceramics, inwhich the names and budgets of the relevantagencies are well known, Japanese Governmentsupport for composites research is fragmentedand difficult to identify. One of the few excep-tions is MITI’s budget for the R&D Project onBasic Technology for Future Industries, a 10 year,$32 million project initiated in 1981. The researchtopics in this project include both composites andceramics. Total government expenditures dedi-cated to PMCs under the project were $3.2 mil-lion in 1983 and $3.6 million in 1985. This pro-gram places greatest emphasis on the aerospaceand automotive applications of advanced com-posites.

Table 9.25.–Major End Users of Advanced Composites in Japan, 1986

Company Recreational Automotive Aircraft/Aerospace Medical Construction Other

Daiwa Seiko. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xShimano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xOlympic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xRyobi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xR.K. Mizuno . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xHonma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xNippon Gakki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xToyota Motors. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nissan Motors. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Matsuda Motors . . . . . . . . . . . .Fuji Heavy Industries. , . . . . . .Mitsubishi Heavy Industries . .Kawasaki Heavy Industries . . .Showa Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mitsubishi Electric . . . . . . . . . . xPower Reactor & Nuclear

Fuel Development . . . . . . . . xMitsutoyo Manufacturing . . . .Sankyo Seiki Manufacturing . .Shimazu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xToshiba. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xJapan Medico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xMitsui Construction . . . . . . . . . x xSOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced Materials,” a contractor report prepared for OTA, Mar. 24, 1987.

xxx

x

xxxxx


Other executive branch organizations coordi-nating research on advanced composites are theJapan Research and Development Corp. (part ofSTA), the Consumer Goods Industry Bureau (partof MITI), the Agency of Industrial Science andTechnology (MITI), the Science and TechnologyCouncil, and the Science Council.

The major national laboratories conducting ad-vanced composites research are given in table9-26. Government-supported research at univer-sities is funded through the Ministry of Education.Total support for advanced composites R&D inthe Ministry of Education accounted for less than$1 million in 1985.

At present, the National Space DevelopmentAgency of Japan, Mitsubishi Electric, Nippon Elec-tric, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries are work-ing on the R&D of composite materials for aero-space end uses. Most Japanese companies andMITI consider automotive applications for ad-vanced composites to have the best prospects fornear-term development, while aerospace appli-cations are viewed as long term. Obstacles topenetration of the worldwide aerospace marketinclude a small domestic market, which is dom-inated by government-related projects, and theinaccessibility of the U.S. and European marketsto Japanese suppliers. However, some analystsexpect Japan to have an increasing presence inworld aerospace markets as a result of joint ven-tures with Boeing, as on the 7J7 airplane.28

ZBRObert Poe, “can Japan Launch a Commerc ia l A i rc ra f t indus-

try?” High Technology, March 1987, p. 42.

Table 9.26.—Major National Laboratories PerformingAdvanced Composites Research in Japane

National Research Institute for Metals (STA)National Aerospace Laboratory (STA)Mechanical Engineering Laboratory (MITI)National Chemical Laboratory for Industry (MITI)Research Institute for Polymers and Textiles (MITI)Industrial Products Research Institute (MITI)Government Industrial Research Institute. Osaka IMITI)aLaboratories under administration of Science and Technology Agency (STA) and

Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI).


Western Europe

The PMC business in Western Europe is con-centrated in four countries: France, the UnitedKingdom, West Germany, and Italy. Together,these countries account for about 90 percent ofthe business, as shown in table 9-27. France dom-inates the advanced composites business in West-ern Europe, with a 55 percent share of sales. Thesubstantial involvement of the French Govern-ment in the major aerospace, automotive, andenergy-producing companies makes the Frenchindustry by far the most heavily state-subsidizedone in Western Europe.

According to industry estimates, total produc-tion of advanced composites in Western Europein 1985 was about 2,500 tons of product, worthabout $550 million. This excludes imports fromthe United States. Significant amounts of ad-vanced composites products are fabricated in theUnited States and exported to Europe either forassembly of European aircraft or for productionof components for U.S. aircraft. For example, Brit-ish Aerospace and McDonnell-Douglas are jointlyproducing the Harrier (AV-8B), and many of thecomposite components are manufactured in theUnited States. In addition, Aeritalia is manufac-turing components for the Boeing 757 and 767.Prepregs are supplied from the United States forfabrication in Western Europe. If imports wereadded to the 2,500 tons, then total consumptionin Western Europe would be twice this figure in1985.

As in the United States, the aerospace and de-fense industries are the most important con-sumers of high-performance composites in West-ern Europe and are expected to continue to

Table 9-27.—Distribution of the AdvancedComposites Business in Western Europe, 1986

Country Percent of total

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55%United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10All others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100°/0SOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced



dominate in the future. Overall, the pattern ofWestern European consumption of compositesis similar to that found in the United States, asshown in table 9-16.

Industry Structure

Resin Suppliers.–Large, multinational chem-ical companies dominate the supply of high-performance thermoses and thermoplastics tothe European market. The major suppliers ofepoxies include Shell, Ciba-Geigy, and DowChemical. Ciba-Geigy alone holds over half themarket. Table 9-28 lists the major resin suppliers.

Fiber Suppliers. –The most important suppliersof high-performance fibers in Western Europe areshown in table 9-29. They include Hysol Grafil,a joint venture between Dexter (USA) and Cour-taulds (UK); Soficar, a joint venture between ElfAquitaine (F) and Toray (J); and Enka (N L). Totalcapacity for the production of carbon fibers inEurope is estimated at over 1,100 tons. The ca-pacity in the United Kingdom is the largest, fol-lowed by Germany and France.

Production of aramid fibers recently com-menced in Europe with the commissioning ofEnka’s new 5,000-ton plant in the Netherlands.In addition, Du Pont is building a plant in North-ern Ireland to serve the Western European aramidfiber market.

Table 9-28.—Major Suppliers of

Prepreg Suppliers.–Western European pro-duction of prepregs is concentrated in France,the United Kingdom, and Belgium. Significantquantities are also imported from the UnitedStates from companies such as Fiberite and Her-cules, Overall, four suppliers (Ciba-Geigy, Amer-ican Cyanamid, Hexcel, and Krempel) controlabout three-quarters of European prepreg pro-duction. A list of leading prepreggers and weaversis given in table 9-30.

In addition to these companies, a number ofaerospace companies manufacture their ownprepregs in-house. These include firms such asAerospatiale (F), Airbus lndustrie, and BritishAerospace (UK).

Shape Suppliers and End Users.–Many of theleading aerospace companies manufacture fin-ished components captively. These include Brit-ish Aerospace, Fokker (N L), Messerschmitt-Boel-kow-Blohm (FRG), Dornier (FRG), Aeritalia (l),Airbus Industrie, Agusta Group (l), Aerospatiale(F), and Dassault (F). The most important con-sumer of advanced composites in the aerospacefield is Airbus Industrie, which is using substan-tial amounts of carbon fibers and epoxy resinsfor the Airbus 300 and 310. Other important civilaircraft programs under way at present in West-ern Europe include Fokker (model F100) and Brit-ish Aerospace (models 125 and 146). Compared

Resins in Western Europe, 1986

Company Location Resin Comment

Thermoses:Shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK EpoxiesCiba-Geigy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SWl Epoxies Dominant supplier for compositesDow Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SWl Epoxies Ranks second as supplier to this sector

Thermoplastics:ICI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UK Polyetheretherketone

Polyether sulfonePhillips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B Polyphenylene sulfide Imports from U.S.Amoco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SWl Polyamideimide Imports from US.

PolyetherimideBASF, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FRG Polysulfone

Polyether sulfoneGeneral Electric . . . . . . . . . . . . NL Polyetherimide Imports from U.S.Bayer, , ., ... , ... , ., , ., ., . . . FRG Polyester (thermoplastic)

Other:Rhone-Poulenc . . . . . . . . . . . . . F Polyamides Leader in development of polyimide technologyTechnochemie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . FRG Bismaleimide Owned by Boots PharmaceuticalsKEY: B = Belgium; F = France, FRG = West Germany; NL = Netherlands; SWI = Switzerland; UK = United Kingdom.

SOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced Materials,” a contractor report prepared for OTA, Mar. 24, 1987,


Table 9-29.–Major Suppliers of High-Performance Fibers in Western Europe, 1986

Plant CapacityCompany location (tons) Comment

Carbon filters:Hysol Grafil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Soficar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RK Carbon Fibers. . . . . . . . . . .

UK 400 20°/01800/0 joint venture between Dexter and CourtauldsF 300 65°/01350/0 joint venture between Elf Aquitaine and Toray

UK 150 Majority share owned by major textile company, CoatsPaton

FRG 350 Based on Toho Rayon technologyFRG 50 Investment in plant was $25 million

Part of major carbon products company

Enka (Akzo) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sigri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aramid fibers:Enka (Akzo) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL 5,000 50%/50% joint venture with Dutch State Development

CompanyDu Pont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IR 7,000 Currently building plant

Glass fibers:Vetrotex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F — Division of St. Gobain

Only European producer

Other fibers:Societe Nationale des

of R-glass

Poudres et Explosifs . . . . . . F 1-2 Boron fiber producer owned by French GovernmentBekaert NV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B Stainless steel fibersKEY: B == Belgium; F = France, FRG - West Germany; IR = Ireland; NL = Netherlands; = United Kingdom.SOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced Materials,”a contractor report prepared for OTA, Mar. 24, 1987.

Table 9-30.—Major Prepreggers and Weavers in Western Europe

Activity

Company Location Prepreg Weaver Comment

American Cyanamid . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BASF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bristol Advanced Composites . . . . . .Ciba-Geigy

Bonded Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . .

UKFRG

xx

—New facility based on Narmco U.S. plant

technologyOwned by BP GroupUK x x

UKF

FRGF

xxxx

Leader in honeycomb structuresLargest weaver of carbon fibersPart of ICI GroupNarmco (BASF) licensee in FranceOwned by government company, Alsthom-

AtlantiqueLeading company in advanced materials,

Owned by CourtauldsLeading weaver in ItalyLeader in honeycombA leading weaver in Europe, turnover of $25

million in 1985One of largest weavers in West GermanyLeading German prepreggerLeading producer of carbon fiber-reinforced

nylonLeading weaver of carbon fibersLeader in thermoplastic composites; part of

N.R. Smith Engineering GroupPart of Nyverdal Ten Cate, large textile group

Brochier et Fils .Fiberite Europe . . .Fibre & Mica. . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

x

x

x

x

x

UKFothergill & Harvey

Gividi . . . . . . . . . . . .Hexcel . . . . . . . . . . .

Stevens-Genen . .

lnterglas-Textil . . . .Krempel. . . . . . . . . .LNP (ICI) . . . . . . . . .

Sigri ., . . . . . . . . . . .Specmat . . . . . . . . .

Ten Cate Glas . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IBF

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xx

FRGFRGNL

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xx

FRGUK

x. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

xNL x. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .KEY: B = Belgium; F = France, FRG = West Germany; I = Italy; NL = Netherlands; UK = United Kingdom.SOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced Materials, ” a contractor report prepared for OTA, Mar. 24, 1987.

—


with the United States, however, the monetaryvalue of advanced composites used in militaryaircraft in Western Europe is rather limited.

The recreation market represents the secondmost important market for advanced compositesin Western Europe, accounting for about 18 per-cent of the total value of fabricated parts. Thelargest component of this group includes tennisrackets produced by such companies as Don nay(B), Dunlop Sports (UK), Snauwaert (B), andFischer Ski (A).

The automotive sector ranks third after aero-space and recreation markets. About 60 percentof the advanced composites used in this sectorgo into specialty racing or other high-performance vehicles. In conventional automo-biles, three sectors are under study for the useof composites: drive shafts, suspension systems,and engine components. GKN, a leading Britishcompany in automotive components, has re-cently marketed a glass fiber/epoxy leaf spring.Automotive companies with composite develop-ment programs under way include Renault, Ford,Porsche, and Audi.

Many consider Western Europe to lead theworld in the biomedical applications of advancedcomposites. While not fully commercialized,composite joints, usually hip prostheses, are near-ing the clinical stage in humans. Leading workin this area is being performed by Schunk undEbe (FRG), Fothergill and Harvey (UK), and theUniversity of Karlsruhe (FRG).

Integration.–As in the United States, most ofthe major end users of advanced composites inEurope are also important fabricators of finishedcomponents. Among material suppliers, there isevidence of a shift toward higher value-addedproducts such as prepregs and shapes. Cour-taulds, among others, has realized that to partici-pate profitably in the advanced composites busi-ness in the long term, it must be more than acarbon fiber supplier. Therefore, the companyis aggressively attempting to move downstreaminto the manufacture of components.

Given the limited number of independentprepreggers and component producers in West-ern Europe, the opportunities for resin produc-

ers and other fiber suppliers to forward integratethrough acquisition are limited. Major resin sup-pliers such as ICI, Philips, and Akzo are increas-ingly emphasizing internal integration into ther-moplastic composite products to broaden theirparticipation in the business.

At present, most of the major aerospace com-panies manufacture advanced composite com-ponents for internal use. Prepregs are suppliedexternally. This is not expected to change in thefuture, since these companies possess the tech-nology and the resources to continue their leader-ship in the manufacturing of components.

Acquisition activity in Western Europe typicallyhas involved the absorption of smaller firms bymajor firms, as shown in appendix 9-6. Major ac-quisitions by European companies have tendedto occur outside the continent, particularly in theUnited States.

Joint venture and licensing activities are typi-fied by the importation of foreign technology intothe European market. Recent joint ventures andlicensing agreements are shown in appendix 9-6.

Foreign Participation in theEuropean Market

Numerous U.S.-based companies participateeither directly or indirectly in the advanced com-posites business of Western Europe. Among themore prominent is Hexcel, which has manufac-turing facilities in France. Most of the other ma-jor participants, such as American Cyanamid,HITCO, and Dexter Hysol operate through jointventure companies. Other leading U.S.-basedcompanies such as Hercules, Fiberite, andNarmco presently sell through sales organizationsestablished in the major countries.

The major Japanese influence in the WesternEuropean market is in the fiber sector. Teijin isselling aramid fibers in Europe, while Toho Rayonand Toray have either licensed technology toEuropean companies or have established jointventures in the carbon fiber sector.

Currently, the only areas in which U.S.-ownedcompanies hold major positions are aramid fibersand prepregs. Considering only U.S.-owned sub-

— . .


sidiaries, the U.S. share of the European marketis roughly estimated at 25 to 30 percent of Euro-pean production. in the long term, the transferof U.S. technology to Europe resulting from re-cent acquisitions in the United States is expectedto make the European market even more self-sufficient.


The following is a discussion of government/in-dustry relationships in the European Community,as well as advanced composites programs in theleading countries: France, the United Kingdom,and West Germany.

European Community Programs

Two programs of the EC, BRITE and EURAM,sponsor research on advanced materials and theirproduction technology. These programs addressthemselves to metals, ceramics, polymers andcomposites; in BRITE the emphasis is primarilyon production technology. Ten out of 95 ongo-ing BRITE projects deal with composite materials.

Outside of the EC framework is the Europeancollaborative program called EUREKA. EUREKAwas created at the European technology confer-ence held in Paris on July 17, 1985. To date, 19European countries, as well as the Commissionof the European Communities, are participatingin the initiative. The objective of EUREKA is toimprove the productivity and competitiveness ofEurope’s industries and national economiesthrough closer cooperation among enterprisesand research institutes in high technology.

At conferences in Hanover and London, 72 co-operative proposals were adopted as projects. Toimplement these projects, which cover a widerange of technologies, about $3.2 billion will beneeded over a period lasting from 2 to 10 years.Although the technological areas covered by EU-REKA and EURAM are closely related, the em-phasis differs. EUREKA is primarily concernedwith developing products, processes, and serv-ices having a market potential. Since theseprojects are closer to the market and involve lessrisk and uncertainty, financing is provided jointlyby governments and private companies. How-

ever, financing arrangements vary greatly fromone country and project to another.

In EUREKA, projects come directly from com-panies without reference to a strategic programwithin the EC. The direct agreement reached ona project by a number of firms is then presentedto the EUREKA member States, which check thatit is consistent with EUREKA’s genera] principlesand conditions for eligibility. Project manage-ment, including monitoring and evaluation of re-search, is done by the participating companiesthemselves.

Two EUREKA programs were approved in June1986 that are related to advanced materials. Thefirst, Carmat 2000, with proposed funding of $60million for 4 years, involves evaluating PMCs forautomobile structures. This program has 13 par-ticipants: eight organizations in France, three inWest Germany, and one each in the United King-dom and the Netherlands. The participants arelisted in table 9-31. Peugeot, the principal coor-dinator, will work with the suppliers in develop-ing a car with much greater use of plastics thantoday’s automobiles. The objective of Carmat2000 is to introduce a medium-sized car in 1990at a lower cost by incorporating large amountsof engineering plastics and composites.

National governments will fund the projectcosts for Carmat 2000 up to a maximum of 50

Table 9-31.—Carmat 2000 Participants

FrancePeugeotUsinorFacilorEcole des Mines (Paris)CetimSt. GobainElf AquitaineInrets

West GermanyBayerBASFBattenfeld

United KingdomICl

NetherlandsDSM

SOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers end Users of AdvancedMaterials,” a contractor report prepared for OTA, Mar. 24, 1987.


percent of the total. The participating companiesand organizations will contribute the balance. Re-search responsibilities are divided among the par-ticipants. For instance, DSM is responsible for de-veloping the bumper system, front subframe, rearwheel arches, trunk floor, and integrated plasticfuel tank. ICI is responsible for the doors andtrunk lid, as well as the glazing; Bayer and BASFwill be contributing their expertise in polymersand composites.

No information was available on the compos-ites component of the second EUREKA program,called Light Materials for Transport Systems, otherthan that proposed funding is $15 million over4 years.

National Programs

In addition to EUREKA and the EC-sponsoredprograms on advanced composites, various pro-grams are underway in several countries.

France.—According to French Governmentsources, government support for all advanced

materials research, including ceramics and com-posites, was $150 million in 1985. The most im-portant institutes, universities, and companies in-volved in advanced composites R&D are givenin table 9-32. Many of the French companiesmaking major investments in advanced compos-ites are government-owned. One government-owned company, Aerospatiale, the most promi-nent aerospace company in France, spent $60to 80 million on R&D for developing compositestructures in 1985.

United Kingdom. —To date, most of the gov-ernment programs have been sponsored by theMinistry of Defence and are primarily aimed atthe aerospace field. The government spent over$255 million in a SO-SO cost-sharing program withindustry to research a new fighter aircraft in theExperimental Aircraft Program (EAP), The pro-gram was launched in 1983 to investigate tech-nologies applicable to future fighter projects. itwas designed to improve the capabilities of theBritish aerospace industry across a wide range oftechnologies, including carbon fiber compositestructures.

Table 9.32.–Major French Laboratories Conducting Advanced Composites R&D, 1986

Public laboratories Location

Ecole d’Application des Hauts Polymerés . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . StrasbourgEcole des Mines de Saint-Etienne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saint-EtienneEcole Nationale Supérieure de Mécanique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NantesEcole Supérieure de Physique Chimie Industrielle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ParisInstitute Nationale des Recherches de la Chimie Appliques (IRCHA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ParisInstitute Nationale des Sciences Appliques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VilieurbanneLaboratoire Nationale d’Essais . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TrappesOffice Nationale d’Etudes et des Recherches Aerospatiales (ONERA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ChatillonUniversité de Besancon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BesanconUniversité de Bordeaux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TalanceUniversité de Technologies de Compiégne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CompiegneUniversité Pierre et Marie Curie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ParisUniversité Scientifique et Technique de Lille Flandres Artois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Villeuneuve

Industry/private laboratories Location

Aerospatiale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ParisAlsthom Atlantique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VilleurbanneCentre d’Etudes des Industries Mecaniques (CETIM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SenlisCharbonnages de France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ParisElf Aquitaine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ArtixGroupement d’lntéret Economique Régienov . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BoulogneLaboratoire de Recherche et de Controle du Caoutchouc et des Plastiques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VitryMatra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ParisMétravib . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EcullyP.S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AudicourtPéchiney. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ParisSociété Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ParisUnirec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FirminyVetrotex Saint-Gobain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ChamberySOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced Materials)” a contractor report prepared for OTA, Mar, 24, 1987; and Dominique Cotto,

Science Attache, Embassy of France, personal communication, November 1987.

75-7920- 88- 6


Many of the technologies developed for theEAP could be used on the planned EuropeanFighter Aircraft (EFA), scheduled to enter servicein the mid-1990s. Development of the EFA, oneof the largest new military aircraft programs, willbe undertaken by a consortium of companiesfrom the United Kingdom, West Germany, Italy,and Spain. The United Kingdom and West Ger-many will have 33 percent of the consortium,Italy, 21 percent, and Spain, 13 percent. The EFAis expected to require considerable quantities ofadvanced composites.

Next to the Ministry of Defence, the Depart-ment of Trade and Industry (DTI) provides themost funding for composites R&D. In 1985, theDTI funded $14 million in PMC R&D, comparedwith less than $2 million in 1980. Also in 1985,DTI recommended a 5-year program for the de-velopment and exploitation of new materials andprocesses, including plastics, composites, and ce-ramics. The Materials Advisory Group of DTI rec-ommended that the government should provide

half of the funds for the program. Total govern-ment funding of this program is recommendedat $170 million. Some of the most important orga-nizations in the United Kingdom with researchprograms in advanced composites are given intable 9-33.

West Germany.—The West German Govern-ment has become much more active in provid-ing funds for new materials research. In late 1985,the Ministry for Research and Technology an-nounced that it would spend $440 million overa 10-year period, 1986-95, for materials researchin the following fields: ceramics, polymers, com-posite materials, and high-temperature polymersand metals. The funds will be allocated on a proj-ect basis to companies, universities, technical in-stitutes, or trade research organizations that haveviable research programs that meet the depart-ment’s guidelines. The government will provideup to 50 percent of the funding on the projects,with the research performing organizations pro-viding the balance.

Table 9-33.–British Government Organizations With Research Programs in Advanced Composites, 1986

Organization Location Comment

Atomic Energy ResearchEstablishment Harwell Has composites and polymers group that makes

prepregs and components for merchant saleRoyal Aircraft Establishment Farnborough Quasi-government agency conducting research on

advanced composites for aerospace sectorExperimental Aircraft Program London Partially government-funded development program with

British Aerospace/Rolls Royce; total funds: $255 millionSOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced Materials,”a contractor report prepared for OTA, Mar. 24, 1987.

METAL MATRIXLike PMCs and CMCs, metal matrix compos-

ites (MMCs) utilize a variety of matrices and rein-forcements, depending on the performance re-quirements of particular applications (see ch. 4).Aluminum is currently the most common matrixmaterial, and the most common reinforcementsare carbon/graphite, boron, and silicon carbide.Like PMCs, MMC development has been drivenby military funding, and current demand for

COMPOSITESMMC materials in the United States is almost ex-clusively defense-oriented. High manufacturingcosts continue to be a major barrier to the useof fiber-reinforced MMCs in commercial appli-cations; however, particulate-reinforced MMCs,which exhibit moderate strength and stiffness im-provements compared to the matrix alone, canbe produced at a cost approaching that of con-ventional metals.


Following is a brief discussion of MMC-relatedactivities in the United States, Japan, and West-ern Europe. Market information is omitted be-cause data were not available for this assessment.

United States

Industry Structure

Presently, suppliers of MMC materials in theUnited States are small, undercapitalized com-panies with limited technical resources. This isbecause the current market is not large enoughto attract large companies. In fact, several expertshave characterized the industry as a “cottage”industry. R&D programs have been initiated bylarger firms, including major aluminum supplierssuch as Alcoa and Alcan. However, the compa-nies actually supplying MMC materials, structuralshapes, and components to the industry are ei-ther small, entrepreneurial firms or small subdi-visions or subsidiaries of large corporations. in-tegration of these smaller producers into concernshaving greater capital and R&D resources is con-sidered an important step in the diffusion of thetechnology into commercial applications. The pri-mary suppliers of matrix, reinforcement, and fin-ished MMC materials in the United States aregiven in table 9-34.

At present, the fabrication capabilities of mostMMC users are limited to secondary methods,such as machining. These users generally buyMMCs from suppliers in the form of billets, plates,structural shapes, or finished parts. However, afew end users are developing in-house casting,forging, and extrusion capabilities for MMCs. Ex-amples include manufacturers of automotivecomponents (such as diesel engine pistons andconnecting rods) and several defense aerospacecontractors.

Joint venture and acquisition activity in the in-dustry is increasing. DWA Composite Specialties,for instance, has entered into a joint venture withRevmaster Aviation to produce silicon carbide-and boron carbide-reinforced aluminum alloysfor automotive engine parts at a cost of$7to$12

Table 9-34.-Major Suppliers of MMC Materials inthe United States, 1986

MatrixAlcanAlcoaAMAXAvco/TextronDow Chemical

ParticulateNortonStandard Oil Engineered Materials

WhiskersArco ChemicalAmerican MatrixJ.M. HuberVersar Manufacturing

Fibers a

American CyanamidAvco/TextronDu PontStandard Oil Engineered Materials

CompositesAdvanced Composite MaterialsAmercomArco ChemcialAvco/TextronCordecDural Aluminum CompositesDWA Composite SpecialtiesMaterials ConceptsNovametSparta

aSee tables 9-19 and 9-23 for suppliers of graphite fibers, which are also usedin MMCs.

SOURCE: Compiled by Office of Technology Assessment

per pound.29 Pistons, connecting rods, and rockerarms are under consideration. DWA also licensedceramic particulate-reinforced aluminum tech-nology to Alcoa in 1984.

Recently, several important companies havebeen put up for sale. Arco Silag has been soldby Horsehead Industries to Tateho America;Amercom, Inc., is being acquired by Atlantic Re-search Corp.; and Textron has placed its AvcoSpecialty Materials Division up for sale.30

Alcan established Dural Aluminum Compos-ites, which it acquired from SAIC. Dural has

29Dural Aluminum Composites has quoted prices as low as $3

per pound in commercial quantities.30Joe Dolowy, President, DWA Composite Specialties, Inc., Per -

sonal communication, November 1987.


produced some 20,000 pounds of silicon carbide-reinforced aluminum and has sent it to 65 cor-porations and laboratories for evaluation .31 Al-coa is developing its ARALL composite (a lami-nate of aluminum and aramid fibers bonded withepoxy). However, the Alcoa effort is still in thedevelopmental stage, and materials are not be-ing offered for sale commercially.

Lockheed-Georgia, which began work onMMCs in 1980, is working with Arco ChemicalCo. and Avco Specialty Materials Division to de-velop silicon carbide-reinforced aluminum con-taining whiskers or fibers as reinforcement. ThisLockheed group uses a spray process to make sili-con carbide fiber-reinforced aluminum compos-ites for use in-house. This work is aimed at de-veloping material for fins to be used on the nextgeneration of the Air Force’s Advanced TacticalFighter. Lockheed-Georgia will design, manufac-ture, and test two fighter-type vertical fins madefrom each MMC material for a program spon-sored by the Air Force.


The greatest interest in MMCs has been for de-fense and space applications. Accordingly, mostof the funding for development of the MMC in-dustry has come from DoD ($1 54.5 million be-tween 1979 and 1986) and, to a much lesser ex-tent, NASA ($9.1 million between 1979 and1986).32 Other agency contributions are negligi-ble. DoD funding of MMCs over the same periodis considerably less than that spent on PMCs($327.7 miilion).33

There has been little government funding ofMMCs for commercial applications in the UnitedStates. Until very recently, companies haveshown little interest in developing MMCs for usein commercial applications. Diffusion of MMCtechnology from military to commercial uses ishindered not only by high costs but also by na-tional security restrictions placed on the dissem-

31 Dural is scaling up to a capacity of 100,000 pounds per yearof silicon carbide particulate-reinforced aluminum by the end of1988.

jZACCOrcfing to data supplied by Jacques Schoutens, Metal Ma-

trix Composites Information Analysis Center, March 1987.jjAccording to data supplied by Jerome Persh, U.S. Department

of Defense, November 1987.

i nation of technical data and export restrictionsimposed by the Departments of Commerce,State, and Defense. (These restrictions, whichhave been very confusing to MMC supplier com-panies, are discussed in greater detail in ch. 11).

Japan

Industry Structure

The principal companies supplying MMCs inJapan are the traditional metals suppliers and sup-pliers of fibers and particulate for PMCs andCMCs. These include Toho Rayon, Toray, Mit-subishi Aluminum, Kobe Steel, and Nippon Steel.Major organizations involved with MMC mate-rials in Japan are listed in table 9-35. Companiesexperimenting with MMC products include Hi-tachi, lshikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries,Honda, and Toyota.

The MMC industry in Japan differs significantlyfrom that in Western Europe and the UnitedStates, in that the same companies that are in-volved with ceramics and PMCs also produceMMCs. The end user industries in Japan that areinterested in MMCs are the automotive, elec-tronics, and aerospace industries. The Japanesedo not have a large defense industry, and theyare concentrating on developing commercial ma-terials for industrial applications, The domesticmarket for these MMC materials is small, butthere are a few products in limited production.

Perhaps the most significant commercial devel-opment is the introduction by Toyota of diesel

Table 9-35.—Principal Organizations Involvedin MMC Research in Japan, 1986

Art Metal Manufacturing Co.B&W RefractoriesDaia Vacuum Engineering Co.Hiroshima UniversityHonda MotorsJapanese Society on Materials ScienceMitsubishiNippon CarbonOkura LaboratorySumitomoTokai CarbonTokyo UniversityTokyo Institute of TechnologyToyota MotorsSOURCE: Jerome Persh, Department of Defense, personal communication,

November 1987.


engine pistons consisting of aluminum locallyreinforced with ceramic fibers. The composite im-proves wear resistance, enabling elimination ofnickel-cast iron inserts. The insert also reducespiston weight and increases thermal conductivity,improving engine performance and reducing vi-bration. Estimated annual production is about300,000 pistons.34 The example of the Toyota pis-ton has stimulated a considerable worldwide in-terest in MMCs for pistons and other automotiveparts. Components being evaluated include con-necting rods, cam followers, cylinder liners, brakeparts, and drive shafts.

Western Europe

Industry Structure

The structure of the Western European MMCindustry is similar to that in the United States. Cur-rent MMC R&D is primarily funded by defenseministry contracts. Among end users, aerospacecompanies have made the highest R&D invest-ments in MMCs. No automobile companies ap-pear to have plans to use MMCs in the near fu-

3ACarl Zweben, General Electric Co., “Metal Matrix composi tes, ”

a cont rac tor repor t p repared fo r OTA, October 1986.

ture, although nearly all have undertaken limitedevaluations. The principal countries involved inMMC research and development are the UnitedKingdom, France, and West Germany. Table 9-36 identifies the principal organizations involvedin MMC research in Western Europe.

European Cooperative Programs

There is a joint European MMC research projectwithin the BRITE program. It is a basic researchprogram on silicon carbide-reinforced titanium.Participants include three government researchlaboratories–the Atomic Energy Research Estab-lishment at Harwell (UK); Office Nationale d’E-tudes et des Recherches Aerospatiales (ONERA,F), Deutsch Forschungs und Versuchsanstalt furLuft und Raumfahrt (DFVLR, FRG), and twocompanies—Sigma Fiber Supply (FRG) and IMITitanium (UK).

Another joint effort is being conducted withinthe aerospace industry. It is solely for basic re-search and is funded at the equivalent of$800,000. The companies involved are BritishAerospace, Westland Helicopters (UK), RollsRoyce (UK), Aerospatiale (F), and Motoren undTurbinen Union (MTU, FRG).

Table 9.36.–Principal Organizations Involved in MMC Research in Western Europe, 1986

Federal Republic of GermanyBatelle-FrankfurtBerghof GMBHDornierMesserschmitt-Bolkow-BiohmSigri

FranceAerospatialeCDF ChimieEcole des Mines (Paris)Elf AquitaineInstitute St. LouisSociété Nationale des Poudres et ExplosifsThomson-CSFUniversity de BordeauxVetrotex-St. Gobain

ItalyAeritaliaFiatSiai Machetti

NetherlandsFokker

NorwayCentral Institute for Industrial Research-Oslo

SwedenChalmers University of TechnologyKockoms ShipyardSAABSweden Defense LaboratorySweden Institute for Metals ResearchVolvo Flygmotor

SwitzerlandCiba-Geigy

United KingdomHarwellBristol CompositesBritish AerospaceCourtauldsDunlopFothergill & HarveyHepworth & GrandageImperial ChemicalsLagstall Engineering Co.Rolls RoyceRoyal Aircraft EstablishmentWellworthy Ltd.Westland Helicopters

SOURCE Jerome Persh, Department of Defense, personal communication, November 1987.


National Programs

United Kingdom. –In addition to those com-panies listed in table 9-35, several other compa-nies have MMC efforts under way. Alcan U.K. isproducing prototype silicon carbide particulate-reinforced aluminum using a spraying processand is planning to scale up to production by1989. Two other large British metals companiesare also planning to enter the MMC business.Cray (no relation to Cray computers) owns a di-vision called Cray Advanced Materials which hasa production facility for MMCs. Using an infiltra-tion process, Cray is developing MMC torpedohulls in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence.Cray uses many different types of continuous fi-ber: graphite, alumina, Nicalon, silicon carbide,and boron. A second company, BNF, is a re-search-only firm (similar to Battelle in the UnitedStates), which has some casting facilities for glassand silicon carbide fiber-reinforced composites.

France.—Pechiney, a large French aluminumcompany, has an MMC division that intends toproduce particulate-reinforced composites. Aero-space companies with MMC programs includeDassault (manufacturer of the Mirage fighter),Turbo Mecha (an engine supplier), and Aer-ospatiale. Not all of these efforts are in-house;Dassault, for instance, is considering buyingMMCs from the U.S. company DWA Compos-ite Specialties.

West Germany.– In West Germany, the twomain companies showing an interest in MMCsare Messerschmitt-BoeIkow Blohm (an airframemanufacturer) and MTU (an engine supplier).Sigma Fiber Supply is a small company develop-ing silicon carbide fiber for use in MMCs.


APPENDIX 9-1: RECENT JOINT RELATIONSHIPSU.S. ADVANCED CERAMICS INDUSTRY

Table A.—Acquisitions

IN THE

Buyer Company

Air Products Mater ials TechnologyAir Products San Fernando LabsA lcoa Ceraver (now SCT) (F)

A l coa PAKCOAVX Monol i thic ComponentsBayer, AG (FRG) Montedison, S.P.A (I)Bayer, AG (FRG) H.C. Starck (FRG) (90%)Borg-Warner Fine Particle Tech. (25%)

Reason

CVD coatingsCVD technologyManufacturing technologyExtrusionsManufacturing technologyElectronicsManufacturing technologyZirconia technologyInject-mold ceramic auto parts

Cabot Augat Tech. Ceram. Electronic packagesCabot Spectrum Ceramics Electronic packagesCabot Rhode Island Elect. Ceramics Electronic packages

CoorsCoorsCoorsCoorsCoorsDow ChemicalDu PontElkem MetalsFordGeneral ElectricW.R. GraceHorsehead IndustriesICI Australia Ltd.Iscar Metals (IS)

(Iscar Ceramics)Koppers Co.LRCMorgan Matroc Ltd. (UK)NortonPure Industry (Stackpole)RaychemThomas & SkinnerThomas & Skinner

Alumina CeramicsRI CeramicsRoyal Worcester Int. (UK)Siemens Components (FRG)Wilbanks Int.Boride ProductsSolid State Dielectr.Ceramatec (minority position)Ceradyne (minority position)3M (part of ceramic business)DiamoniteARCO ChemicalFerro CorpAdv. Ceramic Systems

Ceramatec (minority position)Crystal ateDuramicsPlasma Materials Inc.Frenchtown Amer.InteramicsCeramic MagneticsElectron Energy

Date

Manufacturing technologyManufacturing technologyManufacturing technologyN/AManufacturing technologyManufacturing technologyCeramic capacitorsCeramic partsHeat engineElectrical packages, structuralManufacturing technologyManufacturing technologyZirconia operationsManufacturing technology

Heat engineAluminasCeramic partsPlasma processHigh alumina technical ceramicsElectronicsMagnetic ceramicsElectronic magnetic ceramics

19851986

19861984N/A19851985

198519851985

N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A198519821983198619831983198619861983

N/A1984198619861985198419851985


Table B.—Joint Ventures

Partner 1 Partner 2 Reason Date

AlcanAlcoa

AlcoaCercom, Inc.

Coors

CorningCummins EngineGeneral Motors

Allison Gas Turbine Division

W.R. GraceW.R. GraceHitachi (J)Koppers Co.Montedison (I)NortonOlin Corp.

LanxideAmerican Ceramic Tech.

Intercon XIntercon X

Started new companies in Scotland,Wales, Brazil

Plessco OptronicsToshiba (J)

Int. Energy Agency (with WestGermany and Sweden)

Dynamit Nobel (FRG)Feldmuehle (FRG)SOHIO Eng. Mat. (Carborundum)Adv. Refrac. Mat.KeramontTRW

TechnologyTechnologyProduction (electronics)IC ceramic packagesSilicon nitrides and other

refractories

Fiber opticsTechnology

Powder characterization

High-purity siliconHeat engineSiC ceramicsPowdersPowders, productsHeat engine

19851986

1986

1986N/A

19861986

Ongoing

198319831983N/A19861985

Asahi Glass (J) Electronics 1986

Table C.—Licensing Agreements

Licenser Licencee Reason Date

ARCO Chemical Martin Marietta Advanced ceramic composites for 1986tooling and other wear applications

ARCO Chemical Sandvik, AB (S) SiC whisker reinforcements 1986ASEA Cerama (S) Norton Glass encapsulation N/A

HIP processCentre Suisse D’Elect. et Air Products Chemical vapor deposition (CVD) 1986

Microelect. technologyGreenleaf Corp. ARCO Chemical Manufacture and sale of SiC whisker- 1986

reinforced ceramic toolingIscar Ceramics (IS) Ford Cutting tool technology 1986Lucas (UK) Kennametal Sialon technology N/ALucas (UK) Norton Hot pressed silicon nitride 1970People’s Republic of China Corning Complete factory 1986PPG Alcoa Plasma powder production 1986ROC TEC (Kelsey-Hayes Dow Chemical Powder processing technology 1985

subsidiary)SEP (F) Du Pont Ceramic composites 1987N/A = Not available.KEY: A = Austria; B = Belgium; F = France; FIN = Finland; FRG = West Germany; I = Italy; IR = Ireland; IS = Israel; J = Japan; NL = Netherlands; S =

Sweden; SP = Spain; SWI = Switzerland; T = Taiwan; UK = United Kingdom; US = United States.

SOURCE: Business Communications Co., Inc., “Strategies of Advanced Materials Suppliers and Users,” a contractor report prepared for OTA, Mar. 24, 1987.

Ch. 9—lnternational Business Trends Ž 243

APPENDIX 9-2: RECENT JOINT RELATIONSHIPS IN THE JAPANESEADVANCED CERAMICS INDUSTRY

Table A.—Joint Ventures

Joint venture partners Company formed

Harima Refractories/Nippon Steel

Hitachi Chemical/Carborundum (SOHIO)

Nippon Steel/Kurosaki Refractories/Nippon Steel Chemical

Sumitomo Chemical/SFE Technology

Toshiba Ceramics/Kyoritsu Ceramics

Toshiba Ceramics/SOHIO EngineeredMaterials

Yuasa Battery/

Micron

Hitachi Carborunduma

N/A

Sumika SFE

STK Ceramics Laboratories

N/A

Ceramic Battery

Business

Manufacturing and distributing ceramicpowders

Manufacturing and distributing siliconcarbides

Development of production method fornew ceramics by sol-gel process

Manufacturing and distributingmultilayered ceramic capacitors

R&D of fine ceramic materials

Ceramic fibers

Sodium-sulfur batteries

Date

1985

N/A

N/A

1985

1985

N/A

N/ANGK Spark Plug

Carborundum (SOHIO) sold its share of the joint venture to Hitachi Chemical in April 1986,N/A = Not available,

SOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced Materials,” a contractor report prepared for OTA, Mar. 24, 1987,

Table B.—Licensing Agreements

Licenser Licensee Agreement descr ipt ion Date

British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. Asahi Glass Technology for reaction sintering 1985(UK)

Gateng Instrument (FRG) Nippon Sheet Glass Calcining technology for zirconium oxide 1985Lucas-Cookson-Syalon (UK) Sumitomo Electric Sialon powders and products 1985

Nippon Steel Sialon powders and products 1985Hitachi/Hitachi Metals Sialon powders and products 1985

SOURCE Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced Materials,” a contractor report prepared for OTA, Mar. 24, 1987.

.


APPENDIX 9-3: RECENT JOINT RELATIONSHIPS IN THEWESTERN EUROPEAN ADVANCED CERAMICS INDUSTRY


Buyer (Ioc.) Company Primary business Date

Alcoa (SWI)Bayer (FRG)

Bayer (FRG)

Bayer (FRG)

Bayer (FRG)Coors (UK)Fairey (UK)Feldmuehle (FRG)Hoechst (FRG)

ICI (Australia)b

Lucas (UK)

Pechiney (F)Rauschert (FRG)Rhone-Poulenc (F)

Schunke (FRG)Stettner (FRG)St. Gobain (F)St. Gobain (F)Ziegelwerke Horw-Gettnau-

Muri (SWI)VAW (FRG)

Ceraver (F)Cremer Forschungsinstitut

(FRG) (75% share)Annawerke (FRG) (through

Cremer purchase)Friedrichsfeld (FRG) (through

Cremer purchase)Starck (FRG) (90% share)Royal Worcester (UK)Allied Insulators (UK)Part of Annawerke (FRG)Rosenthal Technik (FRG)

(90% share)a

Ferro’s Bow, NH plantc

Cookson-Syalon (UK)d

Desmarquest (F)Part of Annawerke (FRG)Ceraver’s non-oxide

technologiesDyko Ingenieur Keramik (FRG)CICE (F)Kerland (F)SEPR (F)

Metoxid (SWI)Didier (FRG) (15% share)

Ultrafiltration ceramic membranesResearch laboratory and family holdings

Technical ceramics

Technical ceramics

Special metallurgical powdersIndustrial ceramicsInsulatorsSilicon nitride technologyAdvanced ceramics, including electronic

substrates and automotive componentsZirconia powdersLicensing of sialon patent, prototypes, and

limited part productionTechnical ceramicsTextile guidesTechnology for nitrides of silicon, aluminum

and others, and lab equipmentTechnical ceramicsElectrical ceramicsCeramic fibersRefractories, zirconia beads

Engineering ceramics; mainly tin oxidesRefractories

19861986

1986

1986

19861983198519841983

19861982

198519841985

1983198519851985

1986f

1985aNew comany name is Hoechst CeramTec.bOwned 64% by ICI, UK.CNew company name is Z-Tech.dNew company name IS Lucas-cookson-syalon.eNew company name is Ceramiques et Composites.fAcquired in two steps In June and September.



Joint venture partners Company formed Business.

Date ASEA (50%)/Boliden, Nobel, Sandvik,

SKF, and Volvo (each 10%) (all S)Belgian Government-Walloon Region

(80%)/ Belref, Diamond, Boart,Gechem, Glaverbel (each 5%) (all B)

Brush-Wellman (US)/Heraeus (FRG)a

CICE (F)/Cabot (US)

Degussa (FRG)/Hutschenreuter (FRG)Dyko (FRG)/Morgan (UK)b

Eurofarad (F) (5%)/Pechiney (F) (95%)(recently joined by Thomson-CSF)

Frauenthal (A)/Simmering (A)

W.R. Grace (US) (50%)/Feldmuehle(FRG) (50%)

ICI (Australia) (85%)c/Sirotech,(Australia) (15%)

Koor (lS)/Park Electrochemical (US)Montedison (I)/EFIM (I)

Philips (NL)/Nippon Chemi-Con (J)/Nippon Steel (J)

Rhone-Poulenc (F)/SEP (F)

SACMI (I)/POPPl (I)Thomson-CSF (F)/Lamination

Specialties (US)Wade (UK)/Engelhard (UK)/British Steel

(UK)Waertsilae (Fin) (60%)/Partek (Fin)

(40%)

ASEA Cerama (S)

Neoceram (B)

—

CERDI (F)

—Dyko Morgan Faser

Technik (FRG)Xeram (F)

—

Grace/Feldmuehle/Noxeram

Z-Tech (Australia)

.—

PNN

.

——

—

WP Ceramics

High performance ceramics (HPC),particularly HIP techniques

Develop HPC business

Develop aluminum nitride electronicsubstrate business in United States

Electronic substrates and packagesPresently mainly selling packagesfrom Cabot’s subsidiary, Augat (US)

Flue gas catalyst supportsVacuum-formed ceramic fibers

Dielectric ceramics

Catalytic converters for processing fluegases in power stations

Automotive engine parts

Zirconia products

Electronic ceramicsResearch and development for HPC for

defense applicationsMulti layer ceramic capacitors

Composite of SiC whiskers andceramics

Development of ceramicsSoft ferrites

Steel-based ceramic substrates

Wear parts of alumina and zirconia

1982

1986

1985

1986

19861983

1986

1985

1983

1985

19841986

1986

1986

19861985

1986

1986

aStarted in June 1985 but terminated in December 1985bMorgan recently changed its name to Matrocc64% owned by ICI (UK)

Table C.-Licensing Agreements

Licenser Licensee Product technology Date

ASEA Cerama (S) Norton (US) Hot isostatic pressing (HIP) with glass 1984encapsulation technology

ASEA Cerama (S) Seco Tools (S) HIP with glass encapsulation 1985technology

ASEA Cerama (S) GET (US) HIP with glass encapsulation 1985technology

British Nuclear Fuels (UK) Iscar (IS) Silicon nitride for tool inserts 1983Lucas-Cookson-Syalon (UK) about 15 licensees

throughout the world Sialon technology 1982Mitsubishi Petrochemical (J)/Hitachi (J) Frauenthal (A) Denox catalysts for power plant flue 1985

gasMitsubishi Petrochemical (J)/Sakai (J) Noxeram (FRG) Smokestack emission catalysts 1986KEY: A = Austria; B = Belgium; F = France; FIN = Finland; FRG = West Germany; I = Italy; IR = Ireland; IS = Israel; J = Japan; NL = Netherlands, S =


SOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc , “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced Materials,” a contractor report prepared for OTA, Mar. 24, 1987.

.


APPENDIX 9=4: RECENT JOINT RELATIONSHIPS IN THEU.S. ADVANCED COMPOSITES INDUSTRY


Buyer Acquired company Primary business Date

Amoco Carbon Fiber Group (Union Fibers 1986Carbide)

BASF (FRG) Celion Carbon Fibers Division, Fibers, prepregs, shapes 1985Narmco, Quantum (Celanese)

British Petroleum (UK) HITCO (Owens-Corning) Fibers, prepregs, shapes 1986Du Pont Carbon Fiber Group (Exxon) Fibers, shapes 1985Hexcel Dittmer & Dacy Shapes 1984Hexcel Hi-Tech Composites Ply fabrics 1986ICI Americas Fiberite Composite Materials Prepregs, fabrics 1985

(Beatrice)Owens-Corning HITCO (Armco) Fibers, prepregs, shapes 1985Shell a Morrison Molded Fiber Glass Pultruded shapes 1988Textron Avco Shapes, prepregs, fibers 1985a80% interest.

SOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced Materials,” a contractor report prepared for OTA, Mar. 24, 1987.


Joint venture partners Company formed Primary business Date

Celanese/Daicel Chemical Polyplastics (J) Polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) N/AIndustries (J) molding compounds

Celanese/Kuraray (J) — Development of aramid fibers N/ADexter/Courtauids (UK) Hysol Grafil (US, UK) Carbon fibers, prepregs 1983Fiberite/Mitsubishi (J) Kasei-Fiberite (J) Prepregs 1983Hercules/Biomet — Composite orthopedic implants 1986Hercules/Sumitomo (J) Sumika-Hercules (J) Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) precursor, N/A

prepregsShell/Preform Composites Xerkon Composite shapes, woven 1984

fabricsN/A = Not available.


Licenser Licensee Agreement description DateHITCO Formosa Plastics (T) Carbon fiber, prepreg tape 1984HITCO Mitsubishi Rayon (J) Carbon fiber technology 1981Nikkiso (J) Boeing Carbon fiber technology 1986Sumitomo (J) Avco Distribution of alumina fiber N/AToho Rayon (J) Celanese/BASF Carbon fiber technology N/ATokai Carbon (J) Avco Distribution of SiC whiskers 1986Toray (J) Union Carbide/Amoco Carbon fiber technology 1979Ube (J) Avco Distribution of ceramic fiber 1986N/A = Not available.KEY: A = Austria; B = Belgium; F = France; FIN = Finland; FRG = West Germany; I = Italy; IR = Ireland; IS = Israel; J = Japan; NL = Netherlands; S =



APPENDIX 9-5: RECENT JOINT RELATIONSHIPS IN THEJAPANESE ADVANCED COMPOSITES INDUSTRY

Table A.—Joint Ventures

Joint venture partners Company formed Primary businessAsahi Chemical/Ciba-Geigy (SWI) Asahi-Ciba EpoxyAsahi Chemical/Ciba-Geigy (SWI) Asahi Composite PrepregsMitsubishi Chemical/Fiberite (US) Kasei-Fiberite Prepregs, shapesMitsubishi Rayon/HITCO (US) Dia-HITCO Composites ShapesMitsui Petrochemical/Rhone- Nippon Polyimide Polyamides

Poulenc (F)Sumitomo Chemical/Hercules (US) Sumika-Hercules Carbon fibers, precursors, prepregsToho Rayon/Narmco (US) Toho Badische Prepregs, shapesToray/Du Pont (US) Toray Du Pont Aramid fibersToray/Phillips (US) Toray Phillips Polyphenylene sulfideSOURCE: Strategic Analysis, Inc., “Strategies of Suppliers and Users of Advanced Materials,” a contractor report prepared for OTA, Mar. 24, 1987.

Table B.—Licensing Agreements

Licenser Licensee Agreement description Date

Hercules (US)HITCO (US)NikkisoSumika-HerculesToho RayonToho RayonToray

Toray

Sumika-HerculesMitsubishi RayonBoeing (US)HerculesCelanese/BASF (US)Enka (NL)Société des Fibres de

Carbones (F)Union Carbide/Amoco (US)

Production technology for carbon fibersCalcining technique for carbon fibersProduction technology for carbon fibersSupplying precursorProduction technology for carbon fibersProduction technology for carbon fibersProduction technology for carbon fibers

Production technology for carbon fibers

1979198119861979N/A19801983

1979N/A = Not available.



APPENDIX 9-6: RECENT JOINT RELATIONSHIPS IN THEWESTERN EUROPEAN ADVANCED COMPOSITES INDUSTRY


Buyer Acquired company Business Date

BASF (FRG)BP Group (UK)British Petroleum (UK)Ciba-Geigy (SWI)

Courtaulds (UK)Dow Chemical EuropeHexcel (US)ICI Americas (subsidiary of

ICI, UK)Montedison (I)Sturgis und Teschler (FRG)

Celanese’s advanced materials business (US)Bristol Advanced Composites (UK)HITCO (US)Aero Research (UK)Brochier (F)Fothergill & Harvey (UK)Seger & Hoffman (SWI)Stevens-Genin (F)Fiberite (Beatrice) (US)

Texindustria (I)lnterglas-Textil (FRG)

Fibers, prepregs, shapesPrepregsFibers, prepregs, shapesComposite weaver

Composite parts weaverPrepregsPrepregsPrepregs

WeaverWeaver

198519851988194719821987198419851985

19851981



Joint venture partners Agreement description DateAkzo (Enka) (NL)/Toho Rayon (J) Joint venture for carbon fiber products 1982Courtaulds (UK)/Dexter Hysol (US) Carbon fiber venture Hysol-Grafil 1983DSM (NL)Toyobo (J) High-strength polyethylene fiber 1985Elf Aquitaine (F)/Toray (J) Joint venture for carbon fiber production 1982


Licenser Licensee Agreement description Date

Aerospatiale (F) Hercules (US) Three-dimensional weaving technology 1984Bell Helicopter (US) Agusta (I) Helicopter construction technology N/AHercules (US) CASA (SP) Carbon fiber technology 1987Narmco Materials (US) Fibre & Mica (F) Prepregging technology N/AToho Rayon (J) Enka/Akzo (NL) Carbon fiber technology 1982N/A = Not available.KEY: A = Austria; B = Belgium; F = France; FIN = Finland; FRG = West Germany; I = Italy; IR == Ireland; IS = Israel; J = Japan; NL = Netherlands; S =



Chapter 10

Collaborative Research andDevelopment: A Solution?

CONTENTS

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... . .Introduction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. ..Collaborative Research and Development: Survey Results

Program Scoped Organization .. .. ... ... ......Collaborative Program Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Industry Capacity and Incentives for CommercializationObstacles to Commercialization . . . . . . . . . .

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Appendix 10-1: Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

Table No.

Page

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

TablesPage

10-1. Characteristics of Four Prominent Models of Collaborative R&D . .......25410-2. Examples of Recent Advanced Materials Programs . ..................25510-3. Collaborative Research-Performing Organizations Surveyed by OTA .. ...25710-4. Industry Participants and Government Policymakers Surveyed by OTA ..25810-5. Relative Importance of Collaborative Program Goals Identified by

Industry Participants and Research Managers by Technical Area . .......26210-6. Relative lmportance of Obstacles to Commercialization Identified by

Industrial Participants by Technical Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......264

Chapter 10

Collaborative Research andDevelopment: A Solution?

FINDINGSSince the early 1980s, numerous collaborative

R&D programs involving combinations of govern-ment, university, and industry participants havebeen initiated. These programs have a variety ofinstitutional structures, including university-basedconsortia, quasi-independent R&D institutes (oftenfunded by State government sources), and Fed-eral laboratories. Such collaborative efforts offera number of potential contributions to U.S. in-dustrial competitiveness, including an excellentenvironment for training students, an opportu-nity for each stakeholder to leverage his R&D in-vestment, and research results that could lead tonew commercial products. Collaborations areoften seen as a bridge that can facilitate the trans-lation of basic research into commercial products.

The extent to which commercialization is a goalof collaborative R&D programs depends both oneach program’s organizational structure and theeconomic incentives perceived by the participat-ing companies. Most current collaborative pro-grams in advanced materials technologies areuniversity-based consortia or are located withinFederal laboratories. According to a sampling ofcollaborative advanced materials, microelectronics,and biotechnology programs undertaken by OTA,neither the programs’ staffs nor their industrialparticipants rank commercialization of researchresults high on their lists of priorities; furthermore,neither party systematically tracks commercialoutcomes. By and large, the industrial participantsvalue their access to skilled research personneland graduate students more highly than the ac-tual research results generated by the collabora-tion. This strongly suggests that such collabora-tive programs should not be viewed as enginesof commercialization and jobs, but rather as aform of “infrastructure support,” providing in-dustry with access to new ideas and trained per-sonnel.

According to the OTA sampling, the programs’industrial participants often have only a modestamount of involvement in the planning and oper-ation of the collaborative programs. For the mostpart, they approach their relationship with theresearch performing organizations as being a“window to the future. ” Furthermore, “collabo-ration” may be an inaccurate description of theprograms studied. In large measure, the programsdo not involve intense, bench-level interactionbetween institutional and industrial scientists;rather, the nature of the collaboration seemedto be mostly symbolic.

In many cases, a desire for commercial out-comes does not seem to drive how collaborativeprograms are managed or how issues of intellec-tual property, project selection, etc. are addressed.Many of the university-based programs concen-trate on publishable research and graduate train-ing, while those programs based in Federal fa-cilities are only now beginning to move awayfrom their primary agency missions toward abroader concern with U.S. industrial competi-tiveness.

There are exceptions to these general obser-vations in some of the newer programs in univer-sity-based consortia and quasi-independent R&Dorganizations that conduct both generic and pro-prietary research in parallel within the same pro-gram. Often undertaken in conjunction with Stategovernment funding, these organizations incor-porate a greater commitment to commercializa-tion and economic development in their mission.This suggests that if commercialization is in factone of the goals of collaboration, it needs to bea much more organic part of research-performingorganizations rather than merely an added-onelement.

For the products of collaborative research tobe commercialized, there must be a correspond-

251


ing capacity and willingness on the part of theindustrial participants. However, only about 50percent of the advanced materials company par-ticipants interviewed by OTA reported any fol-low-on work stimulated by collaboration.

Overwhelmingly, OTA’s industrial respondentsdid not feel that changes in institutional arrange-ments with research performing programs wouldbean important lever in facilitating the commer-cialization process. Rather, they perceived that

the critical issue revolves around an economicproblem: how companies, particularly in the ad-vanced materials area, can justify the cost of ma-jor investments in R&D and new manufacturingfacilities in light of uncertain markets. This high-lights the fact that effective commercialization ofcollaborative R&D requires not only a smoothpath for technology transfer from the R&D cen-ter to its industrial participants, but also strongeconomic incentives within the companies to de-velop the technology.

INTRODUCTION1

Conventional wisdom states that one reason forflagging industrial competitiveness in the UnitedStates is industry’s failure to make full use of afirst-class domestic science base. Critics note thatmany technologies developed in the UnitedStates are commercialized abroad, and that theopen laboratories of the best U.S. research uni-versities and Federal laboratories are visited farmore frequently by foreign industry scientists thanby U.S. industry scientists. These critics also ar-gue that other countries have a much closer coup-ling between their research laboratories and in-dustrial production lines. Thus, if the UnitedStates does not greatly improve its level of tech-nology utilization, it may continue to producemore new ideas, but may also remain behind itscompetitors in the commercial exploitation ofthose ideas.

Collaborative R&D programs involving govern-ment, universities, and industry have been toutedas the most effective means of bridging this gap.2

Since the early 1980s, numerous collaborativeR&D programs have been initiated in a varietyof technologies, including microelectronics, bio-technology, and advanced materials.3

‘The discussion in this chapter draws heaviIy from Louis G. Tor-natzky, Trudy S. Solomon, and J.D. Eveland, “Examining Collabora-tive Agreements in Advanced Materials and Other High Technol-ogy Fields, ” a contractor report prepared for OTA, February 1987.

Zsee, for example, Lansing Felker, “Cooperative Industrial R&D:Funding the Innovation Gap, ” Be//At/antic Quarter/y, vol. 1, No.2, winter 1984.

3For a recent review, see the Govern merit-University-1 ndustry

Round Table, New Alliances and Partnerships in American Scienceand Engineering (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1986).

This chapter presents the results of an OTA sur-vey of a sample of such programs, to assess theroles and expectations of government, university,and industry stakeholders. The principal questionaddressed was: What impacts do collaborativeresearch programs have on the translation ofbasic research into commercial products in thesehigh technology areas?

Collaborations often bring together partnersthat have very different attitudes and goals.4 Tradi-tionally, research universities—and to some ex-tent Federal laboratories, as well—have been con-cerned with the advancement of science andtechnology for its own sake; in contrast, R&D de-partments in industry have been oriented towardproduct development for the markets.5 One as-sumption of collaborative R&D programs is thatthese perspectives will somehow merge, creat-ing a seamless continuum from which innova-tions can flow.

There are several factors that make collabora-tive programs an attractive way for industries tosupplement their R&D efforts:

1. The high cost of doing research today makesit increasingly difficult for a single companyto “go it alone. ”

4A review of the barriers to industry/university research relation-ships may be found in Donald R. Fowler, “University-lndustry Re-search Relationships, ” Research Management, February 1984.

5However, there are wide variations within these generalizations;for instance, there are universities with a strong applied researchorientation, and companies that conduct a significant amount ofbasic research.

Ch. 10—Collaborative Research and Development: A Solution? ● 253

2.

3.

4.

5.

The collaboration allows each partner orstakeholder to leverage his investmentmany fold.Many research problems require a multidis-ciplinary approach; a collaborative programcan bring together a “critical mass” of re-searchers with complementary talents andexpertise.Collaborations give a company access tonew ideas and also to graduate studentswhom it may wish to hire.The time horizon of collaborative R&D ef-forts can be intermediate- to long-term, incontrast to the short time horizons typicallyimposed on individuals engaged in industrialresearch.

Although commercialization of research andjob creation are often touted as major benefitsof collaboration, it would not be appropriate toevaluate all collaborative programs by these twocriteria. Federal laboratories, which represent asignificant subset of the programs in the forefrontof advanced materials research, historically havebeen discouraged from involving themselves withcommercial development, although industry hassometimes been able to use Federal facilities ona full cost reimbursement basis. In recent years,there has been a growing recognition of the con-tribution that Federal laboratories could make toU.S. industry’s ability to compete in internationalmarkets. 6 78 With the passage of the Stevenson-Wydler Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-480) and theTechnology Transfer Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-502), the culture of the Federal laboratories ap-pears to be shifting toward incorporating U.S. in-dustrial competitiveness as a goal along with theirtraditional missions.

Although collaborative R&D arrangements in-volving government, academia, and industryhave received a great deal of attention recently,they are not a new phenomenon. The originalmodel for much collaborative government/uni-versity/industry R&D work is the National Agri-

6Joseph Morone and Richard Ivins, “Problems and Opportuni-ties in Technology Transfer from the National Laboratories to In-dustry,” Research Management, May 1982.

7Herb Brody, “National Labs, At Your Service,” High Technol-ogy, July 1985.

Opaul A. Blanchard and Frank B. McDonald, “Reviving the Spiritof Enterprise: Role of the Federal Labs, ” Physics Today, January

1986.

cultural Extension Service program, which canbe traced back in various forms to the 1880s. Itwas not until World War II, though, that majorFederal research efforts were initiated. These in-cluded collaborations between government andacademia, as well as the creation of the large Fed-eral laboratory system, including Oak Ridge, San-dia, Los Alamos, and Lawrence Livermore, tiedto the Defense establishment.

In the postwar years, the steady growth of Fed-eral research spending through the National Sci-ence Foundation (NSF) and the Department ofDefense encouraged the proliferation of univer-

s i ty research fac i l i t ies . Dur ing the same per iod ,

industrial laboratories grew substantial ly, but be-

yond spec i f ic cont rac ts and consu l t ing ar range-

m e n t s , t h e y h a d f e w i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n n e c t i o n s ,

Major trade and industry associations emerged

dur ing th is postwar per iod to concent ra te ta lent

and resources in particular areas, but active col-

l a b o r a t i o n a m o n g i n d u s t r i a l f i r m s c o n t i n u e d t o

be inhibited by antitrust considerations. The e m e r -gence of the industry associations as neutral re-search brokers was a response to these concerns.

In the mid-1970s, NSF’s Research Applied toNational Needs (RANN) program began to ex-periment with various cooperative ventures. TheRANN program represented an attempt by NSFto expand its traditional base in academic basicresearch to a range of other research approaches.However, this initiative coincided with a periodof budget stringency, and RANN programs be-gan to be perceived as competitors to traditionalbasic research programs–the primary thrust ofNSF’s mission—rather than as new opportunities.Thus, only a few RANN programs were sustained,among them the University/Industry collabora-tive programs, largely because they were able topoint to successful leveraging of industry fundsfor research in universities.9

NSF’s current Engineering Research Center(ERC) initiative adopts something from the earlierUniversity/Industry collaborative model, particu-larly the idea of industrial Iiaison.10 However, in

qFOr a recent review, see Robert M. Colton, “University /lrrdustryCooperative Research Centers Are Proving Them selves,” ResearchManagement, March-April 1987.

IOLewis G. Mayfield and Elias Schutzman, ‘‘Status Report on theNSF Engineering Research Centers Program, ” Research Martage-ment, January-February 1987,

——— —


its provision of indefinite Federal funding (as op-posed to phasing out Federal support after 5years), and the lack of industrial leverage overresearch agendas, the ERC program resemblestraditional university-oriented NSF programs morethan do the University/Industry Cooperative Re-search programs.

Relative newcomers to the collaborative R&Deffort are a variety of State programs, such asOhio’s Edison Centers and Pennsylvania’s BenFranklin Partnerships. Along with more focusedinitiatives such as the Microelectronics Center ofNorth Carolina, these new State programs rep-resent some of the more innovative develop-merits. 11 They support a mixture of basic and ap-plied research, and are focused particularly onjob creation and economic development, usu-ally in the high technology sector.

Although gross Federal R&D has been increas-ing, the share of Federal support going to univer-sities has declined one percentage point per yearfor the past several years.12 This has stimulateduniversity interest in securing industrial fundingthrough collaborative programs. At the same

‘lWalter H. Plosila, “State Technical Development Programs, ”Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, summer 1987.

I2 Erich Bloch, “New Strategies for Competitiveness: Partnerships

for Research and Education, ” an address to the New York SciencePolicy Association, New York Academy of Sciences, Jan. 20, 1987.

time, legislative changes have reduced antitrustconcerns inherent in industrial collaboration inR&D and have improved the patent incentivesfor commercialization of the research.13 Thesechanges have produced a climate favoring vari-ous collaborative models, and the visibility of sev-eral of these efforts, such as the Microelectronicsand Computer Corp. (MCC) and NSF’s ERC pro-gram, have become quite high.

Many different models for collaborative R&Dare currently being explored .14 These include“one-on-one” joint projects involving a companyand a university, small business incubator pro-grams associated with research universities, quasi-independent research institutes associated withuniversities, private sector consortia, and mul-tidisciplinary centers based at universities and na-tional laboratories. These models differ widely intheir goals, procedures, and sources of funding.

Table 10-1 outlines some salient characteristicsof four common models of collaborative R&D:

13 The National Cooperative Research Act of 1984 (Public Law

98-462) permitted companies to form joint ventures for R&D. In1980, Public Law 96-517 amended the U.S. Code to permit smallbusinesses and non-profit organizations to hold title to patents re-sulting from Federal grants and contracts; in 1983, this policy wasextended to all Federal R&D contractors.

IQFor an overview, see Herbert 1. Fusfeld and Carmela S. Hak-

Iisch, “Cooperative R&D for Competitors,” Harvard Business Re-view, November-December 1985.

Table 10-1.-Characteristics of Four Prominent Models of Collaborative R&D

Trade/industry University-based Quasi-independent Federalassociations consortia institutes laboratories

Start. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1960s 1970s 1980s 1940sScale of program ... ... ... ... .$5 million plus $1-$5 million $3-$10 million $10-$100 millionSite of research . . . . . . . . usually universities universities universities or special own facilities or contracts

facilitiesFocus of research . . . . . . . . . ., applied to development basic to applied applied basic to developmentPerformers ... . . . . . . . . . . . . usually academics academics/students academics/full-time staff/ full-time staff/contractors

studentsPatent rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . association university/members research performers government/industryMajor accountability. . . . . . . industry through board university, indirect to sponsors (often State Federal Govern-

industry sponsors government) ment/agency missionsCommercialization interest, high generally low generally high low except where needed

for missionMajor products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . products/processes research reports/students research reports products/processesPlanning horizon . ............2-3 years 1-2 years 1-4 years 2-10 yearsProprietary work . . . . . . . . . yes, mostly not usually sometimes not usually, but often

classifiedFunding sources . . . . . . . . . industry members mostly Federal Govern- State government, Federal appropriation

ment, some industry industryDissemination mechanisms . . . industry visits, personnel seminars, publications visits, some exchanges, limited exchanges, semi-

exchanges publications nars, some publicationsSOURCE: Louis G. Tornatzky, Trudy S Solomon, and J D Eveland, “Examining Collaborative Agreements in Advanced Materials and Other High Technology Fields, ” contractor report for OTA, February 1987

Ch. 10—Collaborative Research and Development: A Solution? “ 255

trade/industry associations, university-based con- The suitability of a given model depends on sev-sortia, quasi-independent institutes, and Federal eral technology-specific variables, such as thelaboratories. Some models are more prominent maturity of the technology, the costs of R&D andin particular technologies. For example, col- production scale-up, and private sector expec-Iaborative advanced materials R&D is often car- nations regarding the size and timing of poten-ried out in multidisciplinary centers based at tial markets.universities and Federal laboratories, while col-laborative microelectronics and biotechnology Since the early 1980s, there has been an ex-R&D are more often associated with private sec- plosion of collaborative R&D efforts in advancedtor consortia, quasi-independent institutes, and materials fields. For instance, table 10-2 lists someone-on-one university/company relationships. advanced materials programs that have been ini-

Table 10.2.—Examples of Recent Advanced Materials Programsa

YearState Program Location founded Program emphasis

California

Colorado

Delaware

Florida

Illinois

Massachusetts

New Jersey

New York

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Center for Advanced Materi-als, Lawrence BerkeleyLaboratory

Advanced Materials Institute

University-Industry Coopera-tive Steel Research Center

ERC for CompositesManufacturing Science andEngineering

Bio-Glass Research Center

Basic Industry ResearchInstitute

ERC for Compound Semicon-ductor Microelectronics

Polymer Processing Program

Materials Processing Center

Polymers Program

Center for Ceramics Research

Center for CompositeMaterials

Center for Advanced Technol-ogy in Ceramic Materials

Polymer Innovation Corp.

Welding Center

ERC for Near-Net ShapeManufacturing

Center for Advanced Materials

Materials Research Laboratory

Consortium on ChemicallyBonded Ceramics

U. of California,Berkeley

Colorado School ofMines

Colorado School ofMines

U. of Delaware/Rutgersu.

U. of Florida,Gainesville

Northwestern U.

U. of Illinois

Massachusetts Instituteof Technology

Massachusetts Instituteof Technology

U. of Massachusetts

Rutgers U.

Rensselaer PolytechnicInstitute

Alfred U.

U. of Akron/Case-Western Reserve U.

Ohio State U.

Ohio State U.

Penn State U.

Penn State U.

Penn State U.

1983

1984

1985

1985

1983

1984

1986

1976

1980

1980

1984

1986

1987

1984

1984

1986

1986

1964

1986

Electronic materials, structuralmaterials, and catalysts

Interdisciplinary materials research

Thermomechanical processing andalloying effects on propertiesand deformation behavior

Processing, fabrication, and test-ing of polymeric and compositematerials

Biocompatible ceramic materials

Technology for basic auto, metal,and construction industries

Advanced electronic materials

Synthesis of new processes, inter-disciplinary research

Generic materials processing inmetals, ceramics, polymers, elec-tronic materials, and composites

Synthesis of new functional poly-mers, polymer composites

Automotive engine parts, computercomponents, optical fibers

High-temperature structural com-posites

Advanced ceramics research

Macromolecules, polymer blends,composites

Welding, joining of advancedmaterials

Manufacturing sciences

High-temperature engineeringmaterials

Dielectrics, structural ceramics,advanced materials

High-strength cementitiousmaterials

aSupported by Federal, State, and industry sources.

ERC: Engineering Research Center (sponsored by the National Science Foundation).

SOURCE: Adapted from R.M. Latanision, “Developments in Advanced Materials in the Industrialized Count ries,” a paper presented at the Federation of Materials Socie-ties’ 9th Biennial Conference on National Materials Policy, Fredericksburg, VA, Aug. 4-7, 1966.

— —


tiated in recent years. Most of these are associ-ated with universities and involve combinationsof Federal, State, and industrial support. Therehas been little attempt to coordinate these efforts,and consequently there has been some overlap-ping in research agendas as well as in sources ofindustrial funding. This has given rise to concernthat such a fragmented approach is wasteful, willdilute resources, and will fail to generate the re-sults necessary to make a competitive differencefor the United States in the international market-place. 15 This issue is discussed further in chap-ter 12.

The Federal laboratories within the Depart-ments of Energy, Commerce, Defense, and theNational Aeronautics and Space Administrationalso conduct extensive advanced materials re-search programs in support of their various mis-sions. They are important resources of facilitiesand expertise, especially in advanced ceramicsand composites technologies. Federal laboratoriesare especially important in advanced ceramicsresearch: in 1985, for instance, Federal labora-tories accounted for 30 percent of the total Fed-eral budget of $51 million for structural ceram-

15 R.M. Latanision, “Developments in Advanced Materials in theIndustrialized Countries,” a paper presented at the Federation ofMaterials Societies’ Ninth Biennial Conference on National Mate-rials Policy, Fredericksburg, VA, Aug. 4-7, 1986.

ics R&D.16 Of the Federal laboratories conductingresearch, only the National Bureau of Standardswithin the Department of Commerce has a mis-sion explicitly directed toward industry.

Three industrial consortia focusing on ad-vanced ceramics R&D are being planned at thiswriting. These are the Ceramic Advanced Man-ufacturing Development and Engineering Center(CAMDEC), which intends to focus on process-ing and manufacturing technology and will be lo-cated at Oak Ridge National Laboratory; the Ad-vanced Ceramic and Composite Partnership(ACCP), part of the Midwest Technology Devel-opment Institute, a consortium funded by nineMidwestern States and based in St. Paul, MN; andthe National Applied Ceramic Research Associa-tion (NACRA), based in southern California. Dis-cussions are currently underway among the threeconsortium organizers, officers of the UnitedStates Advanced Ceramics Association, and theU.S. Department of Commerce as to how theagendas of these consortia can be coordinated.Because these efforts are in an early stage, theconsortia membership rosters are still incomplete.Many of the prospective member companies arealready participating in various other collabora-tive programs, and they are uncertain aboutwhich arrangements would offer them the bestreturn on investment.

IGAccording to unpublished data compiled by S.J. Dapkun=, Na-tional Bureau of Standards.

COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:SURVEY RESULTS

To provide a current basis for examining col-laborative R&D efforts as a factor in enhancingthe competitiveness of U.S. advanced materialsindustries, OTA undertook independent surveysof individuals representing the three principalstakeholders in the process: research-performingorganizations, industry participants, and govern-ment policy makers with long experience incollaborative research programs. In all, OTA ex-amined a total of 19 research-performing organi-zations engaged in collaborative R&D, consist-ing of 11 in advanced materials, and, for purposesof comparison, 4 each in information technology

and biotechnology. These are identified in table10-3, and they represent three of the model typesdiscussed earlier: the university-based consortia,quasi-independent institutes, and Federal labora-tories. In addition, OTA interviewed-in separatesurveys-representatives of 19 industrial collabo-rators of these research-performing organizations,plus 9 government policy makers, as shown intable 10-4.

Given the range of collaborative models andtechnologies, as well as the small sample of re-search-performing organizations and industry

Ch. 10—Collaborative Research and Development: A Solution? . 257

Table 10-3.–Collaborative Research-Performing Organizations Surveyed by OTA

Organization Model type Location

Advanced materials:Center for Ceramics Research, Rutgers University . . . . . . . . .University-based consortiumCenter for Composites Manufacturing Sciences and

Engineering, University of Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . University-based consortiumCenter for Composite Materials and Structures, Virginia

Polytechnic Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . University-based consortiumCenter for Applied Polymer Research, Case-Western

Reserve University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . University-based consortiumCenter for Dielectrics, Pennsylvania State University . . . . . . . University-based consortiumMaterials Science Department, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . University-based consortiumMaterials Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. . . . . . Federal laboratoryHigh Temperature Materials Laboratory, Oak Ridge National

Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federal laboratoryCenter for Materials Science, National Bureau of Standards . Federal laboratoryMaterials Processing Division, Sandia National Laboratory . . Federal laboratoryMaterials Research Program, NASA-Lewis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federal laboratory

Biotechnology:Biomedical Technologies Consortium, University of Utah . . . University-based consortiumCenter for Biotechnology Research/Engenics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quasi-independent instituteCenter for Advanced Research in Biotechnology . . . . . . . . . . . Quasi-independent instituteMichigan Biotechnology Institute ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quasi-independent institute

Information technology:Center for Integrated Systems, Stanford University . . . . . . . . . University-based consortiumMagnetics Technology Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute

of Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . University-based consortiumNational Research and Resource Facility for Submicron

Structures, Cornell University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . University-based consortiumMicroelectronics Center of North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quasi-independent institute

Piscataway, NJ

Newark, DE

Blacksburg, VA

Cleveland, OHUniversity Park, PA

Cambridge, MAWright-Patterson AFB, OH

Oak Ridge, TNGaithersburg, MDAlbuquerque, NMCleveland, OH

Salt Lake City, UTMenlo Park, CARockville, MDLansing, Ml

Palo Alto, CA

Cambridge, MA

Ithaca, NYResearch Triangle Park, NC

SOURCE: Louis G. Tornatzky, Trudy S. Solomon, and J.D. Eveland, “Examining Collaborative Agreements in Advanced Materials and Other High Technology Fields,”contractor report for OTA, February 1987.

participants surveyed, the results described in thischapter should be considered suggestive ratherthan definitive. However, it should also be rec-ognized that data from the three surveys are con-sistent with one another, and the conclusionsdrawn therefrom are supported by independentstudies. The following is a summary of the sur-vey results.

Program Scope and Organization

As a survey group, the Federal laboratory pro-grams, which are particularly important in ad-vanced materials R&D, are considerably largerand better established than the other research-performing organizations in the sample. The Fed-eral laboratory programs are staffed by large com-plements of full-time employees, while the uni-versity-based consortium programs generallyconsist of small groups of full-time staff and largenumbers of part-time faculty and student affiliates.

These various organizational types also dependon different sources of funding. The Federal lab-

oratories depend almost exclusively on Federalappropriations. The university-based consortiadepend primarily on Federal grants, but also havesome industry and State government support. Thequasi-independent institutes tend to receive theirfunding from State governments and industry.

The consensus of government policy makers in-terviewed was that the States now have assumedan equal, if not leading role in the developmentof collaborative research programs.17 Several ofthe respondents noted the relative advantagesthat States have in this area, including specialknowledge about regional economies, the abil-ity to tie R&D initiatives more closely to State-leveleconomic planning, and the ability to control in-centives such as taxation and regulation in amuch more targeted manner. As one policy maker

17A review of State and local programs aimed at promoting re-

gional economic development may be found in another OTA re-port entitled Technology, Innovation, and Regional Economic De-velopment, OTA-STI-238 (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, July 1984).

——— —


Table 10-4.—lndustry Participants and GovernmentPoiicymakers Surveyed by OTA

Industry participants:1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.

10.11.12.13.14.15.16.

Allegheny-Ludlum Corp.Aluminum Co. of AmericaArco Chemical Co.Bell-Northern Research Ltd.Boeing Commercial Airplane Co.Corning Glass WorksE.l. du Pont de Nemours & Co.General Motors Corp. Technology CenterGoodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Hewlett-Packard Co.Honeywell, Inc.Johnson & JohnsonMartin Marietta Corp.McDonnell Douglas Corp.MIPS Computer SystemsNoranda, Inc.

17. Shipley Co., Inc.18. TRW, Inc.19. Upjohn Co.

Government policymakers:State-level administrators of collaborative programs (2)Federal policy researchers (2)Federal administrators of collaborative R&D programs (2)Congressional policy analysts (2)Member of White House science policy staffSOURCE: Louis G. Tornatzky, Trudy S. Solomon, and J.D. Eveland, “Examining

Collaborative Agreements in Advanced Materials and Other High Tech-nology Fields,” contractor report for OTA, February 1987.

noted, it is a “finite universe at the State level,”and the limited number of stakeholders permitsa “type of flexibility impossible for the FederalGovern merit.”

On the other hand, the government policy-makers saw a continued and important role forthe Federal Government in developing and sup-porting collaborative programs in which the ma-jor emphasis is on fundamental science. Somefelt that because the Federal Government is nothampered by provincial (and perhaps competi-tive) State economic interests, it is capable of de-veloping and siting such programs in a more ob-jective way. However, there were strong opinionsexpressed about the need for State/Federal col-laborative planning in future initiatives. Respond-ents felt that there was a strong possibility—andsome existing cases— in which Federal programsand State programs were duplicative. At the least,they felt that the Federal Government has an obli-gation to consult with State-level technology plan-ners before siting a major facility in a State.

Industry Involvement

In general, the R&D programs covered by theOTA surveys do not involve intense, bench-levelinteraction between research staff and industrycollaborators. In many programs, the nature ofthe collaboration is more symbolic, and writtenreports or special seminars are the most commonmethods for disseminating research results. Thus,use of the word “collaboration” may be mislead-ing in describing these programs.18

Industry respondents were asked about theircompanies’ involvement in strategic planning,project selection, and project monitoring. Theirresponses showed only a moderate degree of in-volvement, with no significant differences acrosstechnology areas.19

Virtually all of the government policy makersinterviewed saw industry’s limited involvementin collaborative programs as a continuing prob-lem for which there is no quick or easy solution.They felt that while a number of specific mecha-nisms and approaches could be used, the levelof industry involvement would depend on goodperson-to-person contact at the technical level.Suggestions included sabbaticals for industry per-sonnel to spend time at research organizations,and vice versa. Also mentioned was involvingpeople other than scientists (e.g., managers orproduction personnel) from the participatingcompanies. However, some respondents cau-tioned that extensive involvement of industrialpersonnel or university personnel in sabbaticalexchanges might be hampered by the career dis-incentives arising from being absent from one’sregular position for an extended period of time.

lsThe extent of industry participation appears to be greater in thecontext of one-on-one, project-specific cooperation between a com-pany and a university, as compared with multicompany, multi-project centers. See, for example, Denis Gray, Elmima Johnson,and Teresa Gidley, “Industry-University Projects in Centers: An Em-pirical Comparison of Two Federally Funded Models of Coopera-tive Science,” Evacuation Review, December 1987.

19A graphic example of the isolation of industry participants fromthe communication network of industry/university collaborativecenters may be found in j.D. Eveland, “Communication Networksin University/lndustry Cooperative Research Centers, ” (Washing-ton, DC: Division of Industrial Science and Technological innova-tion, National Science Foundation, 1985).


Intellectual Property

Both university-based consortia and Federallaboratories tend to have similar policies on pat-ent ownership. The most common pattern is forresearch-performing organizations to retain intel-lectual property rights to the work and to grantnonexclusive licenses to industry participants. Ina minority of cases, the organizations are able togrant exclusive intellectual property rights to in-dustry participants.

However, there were some subtle differencesin how patent policies were administered and im-plemented. Overall, access to intellectual prop-erty by industry partners seems easier in univer-sity programs. One industry respondent noted:

The Department of Energy’s procedures are in-credibly slow and ineffective, They almost nevergive exclusive licenses to technology–so it’s hardfor firms to pick up patents.

And as one Federal laboratory director put it:

The time and hassle involved for a firm in work-ing with us is a major impediment to doing in-dustrial research . . . and because industry wantsclear titles granted or exclusive licenses from anyresulting technology, they figure, “Why col-laborate?”

There is some survey evidence of informal skirt-ing of the bureaucratic procedures at Federal lab-oratories. As one respondent noted:

Most exchange of information is based on“technical intelligence, ” not patents, Most com-mercialization takes place through informal, old-boy networks. People hear about things . . .come for visits, talk to staff, very little [happens]through formal channels, such as patent transfer.

The Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986(Public Law 99-502) has made it possible for gov-ernment laboratories to grant exclusive licensesto industry for technologies resulting from jointR&D. Industry and government sources contactedby OTA were in agreement that the legislationnow in place clears the way for effective collabo-ration, The questions remaining are how the leg-islation will be implemented at the laboratorylevel, and how quickly the culture of the labora-tories will change to address industry needs.

Proprietary Research

Among the survey respondents, there is a mix-ture of practices relating to how proprietary workis handled by the research staff. In some pro-grams, no proprietary work is done by membersof the staff. However, roughly 40 percent of theprograms permit staff to conduct proprietarywork using the same equipment and facilities, butthat work is done “outside” the program—typi-cally through a one-on-one consulting contract.In three programs, proprietary work is not onlydone by the program personnel but it is a legiti-mate and visible part of the organization’s for-mal efforts.

One interesting development, seen particularlyin the biotechnology area, and to a lesser extentin the advanced materials area, is what may betermed a hybrid program; i.e., one portion of theoverall program agenda is dedicated to basic orapplied research of a nonproprietary nature,while parallel, proprietary work is also done ona project-specific basis, but still within the over-all program scope.

For instance, one respondent described a two-tiered research program in the advanced mate-rials area. The research-performing organizationengages in generic research but also takes on con-tracts with individual companies. There tends tobe a great deal of interaction between universityresearchers and industry scientists in both tiers.In the contract projects, the company retains ex-clusive patent rights, but the research-performingorganization retains the right to publish the re-sults stemming from the projects, often after abuilt-in period of delay. For the most part, thehybrids exist as new State government/universityinitiatives, often closely tied to economic devel-opment planning.

The one clear area of difference between uni-versity- and Federal laboratory-based collabora-tive programs lies in the ability of staff to doproprietary work for or with industry partners,Virtually all of the university respondents in theadvanced materials area indicated that proprie-tary work is undertaken. In a few cases, this isdone as part of an official program, most oftenthrough one-on-one contracts and consultingagreements.


The situation in the Federal laboratories is quitedifferent. All of the Federal laboratory respond-ents indicated that proprietary work is rare at best.The inability, prior to the Federal TechnologyTransfer Act, of firms to get nondisclosure agree-ments regarding collaborative research resultswas seen as the primary barrier to collaboration.

A majority of the policy makers interviewed feltthat the legitimation of proprietary work in thecollaborative programs is essential for accelerat-ing the commercialization of research results.One respondent noted that it is “impossible topursue commercialization without doing propri-etary work.” Unless researchers and researchteams can continue the thrust of basic work intomore dedicated applications for individual com-panies, observed the policy makers, promisingfindings would not be followed through. Nonethe-less, they also felt that proprietary work shouldnot be the primary or exclusive mission of publiclysupported research-performing organizations.

The policy maker respondents offered a varietyof specific solutions as to how proprietary workcould be conducted in the context of collabora-tive programs. The common element in these so-lutions was the notion of establishing a parallelstructure: the basic or generic research programwould constitute the core thrust of the research-performing organization, with other dedicatedprojects being conducted simultaneously for in-dividual companies.

The policy makers suggested various organiza-tional solutions for achieving parallel structures.One was to setup for-profit subsidiaries. Anotherwas to set up a campus-based but legally inde-pendent institution which could pursue productdevelopment as a follow-on to research from thecore program. The overall feeling among the re-spondents was that it is not difficult to figure outa way to perform proprietary work. In the wordsof one policy maker, “People seem to be able tojuggle these things. ”

Although the policy makers presented a gener-ally positive attitude toward proprietary research,some noted that there are several university ad-ministrators and scientists who are concernedthat doing such work will harm the traditional cul-

ture of the university.20 They also suggested thatthere are significant differences across research-performing organizations (particularly universi-ties) in the cultural values or sense of mission sup-porting proprietary work. One implication forpolicy makers would be to locate collaborativeprograms in institutions that perceive industry-oriented research to be part of their overall mis-sion, rather than in institutions that have little orno interest in such research.

Participation by Foreign Companies

Because of concerns about losing the competi-tive edge in key technologies, the participationof foreign companies in U.S. collaborative R&Dprograms remains a thorny issue. In the advancedmaterials area, university-based consortia gener-ally have foreign companies as members, whereasFederal laboratories work only with U.S. com-panies. This issue becomes even more compli-cated as advanced materials companies becomemore multinational.

All of the policy maker respondents viewed for-eign participation as a highly sensitive and im-portant issue. However, none argued for a morerestrictive approach to foreign access to U.S. re-search. The general feeling was that the Nationwould lose more than it would gain through morerestrictive policies, and that such a policy wouldnot address the true underlying problem: U.S.companies are not effectively using the researchresults coming out of collaborative R&D pro-grams, particularly those based in the Federal lab-oratories.

The respondents noted that U.S. companieshave not adopted the aggressive pursuit of ex-ternal information practiced by foreign compa-nies, and have not been willing to assign theirbest scientific personnel to participate in col-laborative research programs. As one respond-ent declared: “The challenge is not to restrict ac-cess, but to run faster. ”

20The effects of industrial support on academic researchers in bio-

technology are reviewed in David Blumenthal, et al., “University-Industry Research Relationships in Biotechnology: Implications forthe University, ” Science, Jjune 13, 1986.


The respondents also discussed the need for“parity” or “equity” in scientific exchanges,which would enable U.S. institutions to obtainas much quality scientific information as they giveout. The respondents felt this principle shouldalso guide personnel exchanges and site visit ac-cess.21

A few respondents suggested providing a pref-erential approach to the dissemination of re-search results to U.S. companies, to give theman advantage over foreign competitors. For in-stance, one respondent suggested that U.S. com-panies, or member companies in collaborativeprogram consortia, be given early versions of un-published results. Another suggested that foreignclients or companies should pay a premium to ob-tain research results or reports from such programs.

Collaborative Program Goals

Goals of Research-PerformingOrganizations and Their Industry Partners

In surveying research-performing organizations,OTA asked managers to assess the relative im-portance of various program goals on a scale of1 to 4. A summary of their answers is given intable 10-5, organized by technical area.

There was a consensus across the technicalareas in the priority and ranking given to the vari-ous goals. Generally speaking, high marks weregiven to such goals as expanding the knowledgebase, transferring knowledge, enhancing training,and fostering different types of industry research.Goals such as patents or commercialized prod-ucts were not ranked highly, although there wasconsiderable variance.

Similarly, OTA asked the industry participantsto rank their goals and motives for affiliating withthe collaborative centers, The answers are alsogiven in table IO-5 so they can be compared withthose of the research managers. As can be seen,the results closely parallel one another, indicat-

21 The principle that the United States and Japan should have“symmetrical access” to each other’s science and technology in-stitutions was advanced at the Second U.S.-Japan Conference onHigh Technology and the International Environment, a meetingjointly sponsored by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences andEngineering and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science,held in Kyoto, Japan, Nov. 9-11, 1986.

ing convergence between the two groups on pro-gram goals and expectations. Most highly rankedby both were the general expansion of knowledgeas well as the transfer of basic scientific informa-tion between collaborative partners. Although theindustry participants ranked goals such as patentsand commercial products somewhat higher thanR&D managers in the research-performing orga-nizations, these goals do not appear to be theprincipal motivating force behind the collabora-tion.22

Responses to related survey questions providedfurther insight into the collaborative relationship.The industry participants were asked how affili-ation with research programs complementedtheir own companies’ activities, The most fre-quent comments centered around the idea thataffiliation is a way for the company to acquireknowledge. As one respondent noted,

When we started we had no experience in thisarea. The program provided a window on poten-tial areas of advanced materials in the future.

It is important to note that in large measure theindustry participants did not gain such knowledgethrough reading reports. Rather, they valued inparticular the access to knowledgeable people–both faculty and graduate students. The respond-ents also were asked about their primary moti-vation for corporate affiliation with collaborativeR&D programs. Comments received most oftenincluded “technical expertise, ” the organizationbeing a “leader in a specific technology process,”and the desire to “maintain and facilitate a win-dow on developments . . . especially work be-ing done at the best U.S. universities. ”

Access to graduate students was a significantmotivator for some companies, particularly in the

22These results for organizations based on the university consor-

tium model are consistent with those of previous studies: see Den is

Gray and Teresa Gidley, “Evaluation of the NSF University/IndustryCooperative Research Centers: Descriptive and Correlative Find-ings from the 1983 Structure/Outcome Survey s,” unpublished pa-per, Department of Psychology and Center for Communicationsand Signal Processing, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC,June 1986; Gray, Johnson, and Gidley, op. cit., see footnote 18,1987; Mike Devine, Tom James, and Tim Adams, “Government

Supported University/Industry Research Centers: Issues for Success-

ful Technology Transfer, ” paper presented at the Twelfth Annual

Meet ing and In ternat iona l Sympos ium of the Techno logy Transfer

Soc ie ty , Washington, DC, June 23-25, 1987.


Table 10-5.– Relative Importance of Collaborative Program Goals Identified byIndustry Participants (1P) and Research Managers (RM) by Technical Areaa

Advanced materials Information technology Biotechnology

Goal IP RM IP RM IP RM

General expansion of knowledge . . . . . . . . 3.4 3.7 4.0 4.0 2.8 3.8Transferring knowledge between

collaborative partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 3.6 3.0 4.0 3.2 3.8Enhancement of training for research

personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 3.0 3.7 3.8 2.8 3.0Enhancement of industrial research . . . . . . 3.1 2.8 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.5Redirection of university research . . . . . . . 2.5 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.8 1.0Development of new research projects

with collaborating firms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 2.1 2.0 2.5 3.0 2.3Development of patentable products . . . . . 2.4 2.5 1.0 1.5 3.0 3.0Development of commercialized products. 3.1 2.2 2.0 1.5 3.0 2.8aScores could range from 1 to 4 with 4 being the highest in importance. Entries are mean scores.SOURCE: Louis G. Tornatzky. Trudy S. Solomon, and J.D. Eveland, “Examining Collaborative Agreements In Advanced Materials and Other High Technology Fields,”

contractor report for OTA, February 1987.

information technology area. Research-perform-ing organizations are seen by some industry par-ticipants as being akin to “intellectual feed lots”for the nurturing of future personnel. Some re-spondents mentioned that access to particular fa-cilities, unavailable in their own companies, wasanother motivating force for affiliation.

overall, the industry participants’ reasons forcorporate affiliation with research-performingorganizations are best summed up by one re-spondent:

The specific projects are not as important. Peo-ple in charge are too far removed from the reali-ties of product and market development. It’s nottheir bag, and we don’t expect them to do it. Theyrejuvenate our bag of tricks; we take it to the mar-ketplace.

Commercialization as Mission

Typically, the research managers interviewedby OTA cited three reasons for establishing col-laborative R&D programs: 1) response to a fund-ing opportunity or an opportunity to establish sta-bility of funding, 2) response to industry needsor to a larger economic agenda, or 3) responseto the fulfillment of a government agency mission.

programs that were founded to address indus-try needs or economic development concernswere able to identify more in the way of com-mercial results. This observation, of course, merelyreflects that an organization that plans from thebeginning for a certain outcome is more likely

to achieve it. However, it also reflects distinctdifferences in the way these organizations en-gaged in collaborative programs approach theirmissions. For instance, one academic respond-ent whose organization reported few commer-cial outcomes stated that it would be “repug-nant” to consider commercialization as a factorin how research reports are disseminated. By con-trast, a peer in the same technical area, whenquestioned about project monitoring, noted that“one of the things we look at when we reviewprojects . . . is whether something is patentable. ”

Another respondent at a Federal laboratorynoted that strategic planning was approachedwith the idea that commercialization was a “realgold star.” In the biotechnology area, when askedabout the strategic planning function, one re-spondent stated,

We don’t want to overlook the science, but thethrust of our activities is the enhancement of eco-nomic development through information andtechnology transfer . . . Essentially everything be-ing done in the program has some commercialpotential.

These comments capture the more pervasivesense of commercialization as mission in someresearch-performing organizations. This missionwould seem to be established early and is prob-ably woven into the very fabric of the organiza-tion. There appear to be some differences in com-


mercialization perspective across technical areas,though. The newer biotechnology centers ap-peared to be significantly more oriented towardcommercialization as “embedded mission” thanis the case with the more established centers inthe other technologies.

There was considerable disagreement amongthe policy makers on the extent to which research-performing organizations should adopt a full-blown commercialization perspective in theiroperations. Two of the respondents argued thatsome collaborative research organizations, par-ticularly universities, will always be oriented pri-marily toward fundamental science. Moreover,they argued, this is appropriate and desirable,given the historical mission of university research.on the other hand, the other respondents sug-gested that a commercialization perspectiveought to be built into research organizations, butthey differed as to how to accomplish this ob-jective.

Several of the policy makers suggested that thehybrid programs represent a desirable option. Vir-tually all the policy makers suggested that theadoption of a more aggressive commercializationperspective would be enhanced by facilitating agreater mingling across the stakeholder groups;i.e., through greater use of joint staff/industrycommittees to set the research agendas, increasedemphasis on personnel exchanges, and informalinteractions among the different stakeholdergroups.

Industry Capacity and Incentives forCommercialization

Only about half of the surveyed industry par-ticipants who are affiliated with advanced mate-rials research-performing organizations reportedany internal follow-on work initiated as a resultof collaboration. Given that the organizations hadidentified the surveyed industry participants astheir most active collaborators, this proportionis likely to be an overestimate of follow-on activ-ities on a nationwide basis.

Obstacles to Commercialization

To further explore the industry respondents’views on the commercialization process, OTA

asked them to rate several potential obstacles tothis process. These included such issues as themanagement of the collaborative program, skilllevels of company technical personnel, interdis-ciplinary content of the new technologies, man-ufacturing scale-up costs, market uncertainties,cost justification, government policies, the plan-ning process, and the lack of integration betweenthe design and manufacturing functions. Each fac-tor was rated on a 4-point scale, with 1 repre-senting no obstacle at all and 4 representing asignificant obstacle to commercialization.

In addition, the respondents were given the op-portunity to identify other obstacles, as well asto elaborate on why they felt some factors weremore important than others. They were alsoasked whether the institutional arrangements be-tween their companies and the collaborativeresearch-performing organizations constituted asignificant obstacle,

Table 10-6 presents the summary data on ob-stacles to commercialization, as ranked in impor-tance by industry participants and organized bytechnical area. Over the three technologies, thecost to scale-up manufacturing processes was themost significant obstacle, closely followed bymarket uncertainties and difficulties in the costjustification of new technologies. In the opinionof the respondents, advanced materials technol-ogies are particularly beset by a cluster of prob-lems centering on economics. There are majormarket uncertainties in the advanced materialsarea, which, coupled with high scale-up costs,create significant cost justification problems.

The issues of market uncertainty, planning, andcost justification tended to be intertwined in theperceptions of the respondents. The followingthree comments are illustrative:

If we develop something that looks real good,but has never been commercialized and it takesa big chunk of capital . . . it’s a very tough de-cision.

This contrasts to the costing of products andtheir justification, where the product and marketare known, and payback comes in a few years.The entire management chain is conditioned tothis, and R&D programs tend to be fundedthrough product line management.


Table 10-6.—Relative Importance of Obstacles to Commercialization Identified byIndustrial Participants by Technical Areaa

Advanced InformationObstacle materials technology Biotechnology Overall

Management of collaborative program . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4Level of technical training in company . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9Cost to scale-up manufacturing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2Market uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3Interdisciplinary nature of R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9Cost justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2Government policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3Short-term planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6Lack of integration between design and

manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,0

1.72.03.32.02.02.71.73.0

2.3

1.01.62.42.21.42.03.02.2

2.4

1.41.83.02.81.82.82.42.6

2.7aScores could range from 1 to 4 with 4 being the highest In importance. Entries are mean sources.

SOURCE: Louis G. Tornatzky, Trudy S. Solomon, and J.D. Eveland, “Examining Collaborative Agreements in Advanced Materials and Other High Technology Fields.”contractor report for OTA, February 1987.

To the extent that you are directly replacing aproduct with a new one, this is not a prob-lem . . . New products or applications are theproblem.

Only in the biotechnology area were govern-ment policies seen as the greatest obstacle tocommercialization. Concerns expressed by re-spondents focused on the intensity of environ-mental and safety pressures and the overlap be-tween Federal and State regulations.

The industry respondents offered several par-tial solutions to these obstacles to commerciali-zation. In the advanced materials area, somesuggested approaches centered on temporarilysuspending a market-pull philosophy and mov-ing toward a more aggressive technology-pushapproach. One respondent suggested that indus-try should: “. . . invest money, make product,and create a market. We do it backwards. ”

Some suggested that the present market in ad-vanced materials is insufficient to warrant majorinvestments in commercialization, given the tradi-tional approaches to cost justification. Some sug-gested a more systemic long-term approach toproduct planning and development. Some sug-gested that the government should play a role,perhaps with some tax incentives to “encouragerisk capital to go after new processes. ” Somepointed out that such countries as Japan are de-

veloping ceramics without an obvious currentmarket need. (These comments echo the themespresented in chs. 8 and 9.)

In assessing the industry participants’ views oncommercialization obstacles, all survey respond-ents were asked whether changes in the institu-tional arrangements between their companiesand research-performing organizations wouldhelp. By a large majority (82 percent), they indi-cated that this was not the case. Rather, they per-ceived the obstacles as emanating from their owncompanies.

Several policy makers pointed out the lack ofa technology infrastructure to enable promisingresearch results to move across the boundariesbetween research-performing organizations andtheir industry clients. They suggested that thelevel of industry involvement in these organiza-tions be increased, and especially that it be ex-panded to include individuals who representdifferent levels and functions within the indus-try organization, including those from manufac-turing and product development, as well as R&D.As one respondent noted:

People in industry in a position to commercial-ize results, whose job it is to do it, are not in com-munication with those with the data in theseprograms.


CONCLUSIONThe capability of collaborative R&D arrange-

ments to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. in-dustry depends on several interrelated factors: theinstitutional structure of the collaborative pro-gram, the type of technology involved, and theeconomic incentives for commercializing thattech no logy.

In assessing the effectiveness of collaborationsin bridging the gap between basic research andcommercial products, a distinction must be madebetween the technology transfer process and thedriving force behind the transfer. When the eco-nomic driving force is present, the institutionalarrangements can have a significant impact onthe pace of commercialization. For instance, ex-perience suggests that hybrid programs featuringopportunities for proprietary, project-specific re-search as well as nonproprietary, generic researchlead to greater commercialization than do thosefeaturing generic research alone.

However, if the economic driving force is notpresent, specific institutional arrangements arenot likely to make much difference. In the caseof advanced materials, a significant gap still re-mains between the point at which collaborativework leaves off and that at which industry com-mitment begins. This is largely due to economicfactors, especially the high cost of manufactur-ing scale-up in an uncertain business climate.Thus, while collaborative programs of the typesurveyed by OTA do provide valuable productsin the form of trained students and new researchresults, these surveys suggest that the programsshould not be viewed as solutions to the prob-lem of relatively slow commercialization of ad-vanced materials in the United States. optionsfor addressing this problem are discussed furtherin chapter 12.

APPENDIX 10-1: METHODOLOGY

The purpose of the OTA surveys was to provide abasis for an analytical description of collaborative R&Dactivities in advanced materials, and to draw lessonswhere appropriate from similar activities in biotech-nology and information technology. The particular fo-cus was on research-performing organizations that 2.have significant government support, either from Fed-eral or State funding programs, and that have col-laborative arrangements with industrial firms operat-ing in the same technology area. The primary analyticquestion was, “What impacts do collaborative researchprograms have on the translation of basic research intocommercial products in these technical areas?” 3.

OTA used a methodology intended to “triangulate”a set of results. Primary data and other informationwere collected from three sources: research-perform-ing organizations, companies that are the clients andcollaborators of the research-performing organizations, 4.and former and current government policy makers atthe Federal and State level who are familiar with thecontext in which the collaborative arrangements havebeen established and managed.

Data collection and analysis were driven by a setof 10 major issues, formulated as follows: 5.

1. What is the evolutionary history of collabora-

tive R&D in terms of stakeholder involvement,initial premises and mission, funding support,and growth? Are these founding issues relatedto involvement in and success with the commer-cialization experiences of industry partners?To what extent are industry participants involvedat both a policy and management level in theongoing operations of research-performing orga-nizations? Is this involvement related to an in-creased level of interaction or commercializationby industry partners, and what are the ways inwhich programs can become more collaborative?To what extent do commercialization issues in-fluence the policies and practices of research-performing organizations, and how can collabora-tive R&D programs be made more responsiveto the goal of commercialization?What has been the experience and success ofindustry partners’ commercialization of resultsemanating from collaborative R&D programs,and how does this differ across different typesof research-performing organizations and thethree technical areas under study?What is the nature of work being done col-laboratively with the research-performing or-


6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

ganizations, and to what extent has this workcontributed to follow-on R&D by the industryparticipants or to commercial products andprocesses?What are the primary obstacles to commerciali-zation in the three technical areas from the per-spective of industry participants?How should publicly supported collaborativeR&D programs resolve the issue of doing pro-prietary work for industry participants?Are any programmatic changes needed in thearea of intellectual property and patents?What can be done to improve the industry par-ticipants’ utilization of research results stemmingfrom these collaborative programs?What are the appropriate roles of Federal andState governments in the future design, funding,and operation of collaborative R&D programs?

Selection of Survey Participants

Survey of Research-PerformingOrganizations

Several key criteria were used by OTA in selectingorganizations to participate in the survey of research-performing organizations. The survey was confinedto distinct organizational entities, such as institutes orcenters, that were engaged in several discrete projects.Organizations were selected that had significant fis-cal, intellectual, or contractual involvement with oneor more industrial firms, that were judged to be tech-nologically in the upper tier of their field, and that hadan experience record of at least 2 to 3 years ofoperation.

Initially, 22 candidate organizations were identifiedand contacted. Of these, 3 declined to participate. Thefinal sample of 19 research-performing organizationsconsisted of 11 in the advanced materials area (includ-ing 5 Federal laboratories), 4 in biotechnology, and4 in information technology. The typical survey re-spondent in each of the organizations was a programadministrator and/or senior scientist. A list of partici-pating organizations is given in table 10-3.

Industrial Participants Survey

As part of the survey of research-performing orga-nizations, respondents at each of the 19 organizationsthat participated were asked to identify at least twoindividuals from industry who had a significant ongo-

ing relationship with his or her program. Of these 19respondents, 2 declined to identify industry person-nel, and 2 identified only a single contact each, yield-ing a potential sample of 32 industry participants. Ofthese, 10 could not be contacted during the timeperiod for data collection and 3 declined to partici-pate, leaving a final sample of 19 individuals.

The job categories of the industry participants wererelatively homogeneous. Of the 19 respondents, 12functioned as research managers and 7 performed ina business management capacity. A list of the com-panies represented in the survey is given in table 10-4.

Survey of Government Policy makers

Information was gathered through telephone inter-views with nine respondents. Respondents were cho-sen to reflect a variety of sectors and viewpoints: twoState-level administrators of collaborative R&D pro-grams; two policy researchers; two current or formeradministrators of collaborative R&D programs; twocongressional policy analysts; and one current mem-ber of the White House science policy staff. The sam-ple was constructed so as to provide a broad-basedevaluation of—and expansion on—findings from theother two surveys.

Survey Data and Analysis

For each of the three surveys, an interview protocolwas developed consisting of both short-answer andopen-ended questions grouped according to the 10major issue areas described above. The interviews,which lasted from 30 to 90 minutes, yielded a mix-ture of qualitative and quantitative information, sup-plemented by written background material suppliedby the interviewees. For the qualitative information,a master coding protocol was used to convert the datato nominal (yes/no) form suitable for descriptive sta-tistics. In the survey of policy makers, no formal con-tent analysis procedures were employed; the intentwas to capture recurrent themes contained in the in-terviews rather than to generate quantitative or quasi-quantitative data.

Statistical treatment of the data was primarily descrip-tive in nature. Some comparative analyses were alsoperformed. The small sizes of the samples precludedmore sophisticated analysis. Data presented in the ta-bles in the body of this chapter should be consideredas useful abstractions of an essentially qualitative anal-ysis rather than as quantitative or rigorous.

-.

Chapter 11

The Military Role in AdvancedMaterials Development

CONTENTSPage

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . .269Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270Export Controls.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . .. .272

U.S. Export Control Regime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .272Effects of Export Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ... .. .275Reexport Controls . . . . . . ........ . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . .......275Industry Representation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ... ... ..277

Information Controls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . 277Closed Conferences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... .. . .... .....279Department of Defense-Generated Databases . .........................280

Technology Transfer From the Military. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................281P r o c u r e m e n t I s s u e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8 3

Materials Qualification Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...283Domestic Supply of Advanced Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............284

Offsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... ... .......... .. .285The Balance of Commercial and Military interests . .......................286

BoxesBOX NO.

11-A. Export Control of Metal Matrix Composite11-B. Export License Application Processing . . .

TablesTab/e No.

Page

products and Information ....274. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276

Page

11-1.

11-2.11-3.11-4.11-5.

11-6.11-7.

11-8.

U.S. Government Agency Funding for Advanced Structural Materials inFiscal Year 1987. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........,...,271The Export Control Regime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............272Export Controls on Advanced Materials . . . . . . . ........ . ...........273Mechanisms for Controlling information on Advanced Materials . .......278Department of Defense Directives and Instructions for lnformationControl . . . . . . . . . .. .. ... ... ...... .. .. ... .. .. . . .. ..279Defense Technical Information Center Databases . ...................280Manufacturing Technology (ManTech) Program Funding Levels forAdvanced Materials-Related Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282Qualification Costs of New Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........284

Chapter 11

The Military Role in AdvancedMaterials Development

FINDINGSThe military sponsors about 60 percent (roughly

$98 million of $167 million in 1987) of Federaladvanced structural ceramics and composites re-search and development in the United States.These figures do not include the additional R&Dfunded in classified programs and in other cate-gories of materials research such as engineeringdevelopment and operational systems develop-ment. The military establishment continues toprovide the major U.S. market for advanced ma-terials. However, military markets alone are notlarge enough to sustain a viable advanced mate-rials industry.

Military advanced materials R&D investmentscould make a significant contribution to the com-petitiveness of U.S. firms. However, military andcommercial interests in these materials differ. Ascommercial markets for these materials continueto grow, balancing military and commercial in-terests in advanced materials could become a crit-ical factor in U.S. competitiveness. Among themajor issues that will require resolution are ex-port controls, controls on information, offsets,and government procurement practices.

Advanced materials are used in military sys-tems, whose export is controlled by the Depart-ment of State, and in “dual use” products (thosewith both military and commercial application),whose export is controlled by the Departmentof Commerce. For national security reasons, theDepartment of Defense (DoD) also has a majorinfluence on export control decisions.

Export controls, although necessary for nationalsecurity reasons, are considered by U.S. indus-try to be cumbersome and outdated. Delays inprocessing export licenses can result in loss ofsales abroad. Export control procedures relatingto metal matrix composites (MMCs) are especiallyconfusing, and it is not clear to U.S. MMC sup-pliers interviewed by OTA which Federal agency

has the responsibility for controlling these mate-rials. Commercial industry representation in ex-port control policymaking bodies is minimal.Greater representation by commercially-orientedindustry could help to provide a balance betweenmilitary and commercial interests in export con-trol policy.

Via an informal international agreement, theUnited States, all of the other NATO countries(except Iceland), and Japan have established anexport control organization called the Coordinat-ing Committee for Export Controls, or, informally,CoCom. This organization informally maintainsmultilateral controls on certain technologies thathave been agreed upon by all member nations.

Export controls are intended to prevent directshipment of militarily significant technologies toproscribed countries. Because U.S. technologyexported to an approved country can often thenbe reexported to a proscribed country, the UnitedStates also maintains reexport controls. Thesereexport controls generally involve a requirementthat a foreign company wishing to reexport tech-nology received from the United States must ap-ply to the United States for a license. Many coun-tries view U.S. reexport controls as unwarrantedinterference in their political and commercial af-fairs, and in some cases these controls have beendetrimental to U.S. trade as well as to relationswith allied nations. The United States is the onlycountry that seeks to control the reexport of in-formation and products in a significant way.

Technical information about advanced mate-rials is currently controlled under a complex re-gime of laws and regulations administered by theDepartments of State, Commerce, and Defense.These controls can be confusing to the advancedmaterials community and tend to limit the trans-fer of military materials technology to the com-mercial sector. Some of the controls are intended

269


to prevent non-U.S. citizens from receiving in-formation; these policies are increasingly com-ing into conflict with the internationalization ofthe advanced materials industries. Such policiesrun the risk of provoking retaliatory restrictionson the flow of technical information into theUnited States. This could prove detrimental to therate of technology development in the UnitedStates, especially in cases where superior tech-nology exists abroad.

Although not strictly a military issue, controlledor proprietary information about advanced ma-terials may be distributed worldwide by the prac-tice of offsets. offsets are the offering of creditstoward the acquisition of supporting technologyto ensure sale of U.S. military systems (e.g., air-craft) to a foreign government. This newly ac-quired technology subsequently enables foreigncompanies to compete with the United States inthe production of future military systems. Offsetsare an integral part of the complex foreign pol-icy considerations that go into such sales. Al-though offsets are reviewed for national securityreasons, they receive no economic review for po-tential harm to the U.S. industrial base.

As with other technologies, such as microelec-tronics and machine tools, there is a growing rec-ognition within DoD of the importance of main-taining a strong domestic manufacturing capacityfor advanced materials. To fulfill its goals of sup-porting the U.S. industrial base, DoD has beendeveloping a plan to pursue domestic productionof some types of advanced materials regarded ascritical, particularly polyacrylonitrile (PAN) fiberprecursor for polymer matrix composites (PMCs).The Department of Defense Appropriations Actof 1987 (Public Law 100-202) requires that 50 per-cent of all PAN precursor used in U.S. militarysystems must be domestically produced by 1992.This legislation includes a timetable and incre-mental goals for achieving this level of domesticproduction. As yet DoD has not completed a planfor implementing the domestic PAN productionrequirements, causing uncertainty within indus-try regarding plant location and capacity, estab-lishment of foreign-owned plants in the UnitedStates, and materials qualification,

INTRODUCTIONAt present, the military is one of the largest cus-

tomers for advanced materials, especially PMCs.DoD has committed to purchase 80 billion dol-lars worth of weapons systems that use varioustypes of advanced composites.1 DoD funding forbasic research and exploratory development inadvanced structural materials constitutes about60 percent of total Federal R&D expenditures forthese materials, as shown in table 11-1.

Composites are used in many military applica-tions by all three services. The Army is pursuingPMCs and ceramic matrix composites (CMCs) forbody and vehicle armor.2 In addition, MMCs arebeing considered for use by the Navy and AirForce for structural components of aircraft, mis-

] Kenneth Foster, U.S. Department of Defense, personal commu-nication, June 1987.

2u.s. Department of Defense, Standardization Program Plan,

Composites Technology Program Area (CMPS), Mar. 13, 1987.

siles, torpedoes, and other weapons systemscomponents. 3

In the past, PMCs have been used in the Army’sApache and Black Hawk helicopters, Navy air-craft such as the F-14, the FA-18, the AV-8B, andthe Air Force’s F-1 5 and F-16. With the experi-ence gained in military applications such asfighter aircraft and rocket motor casings begin-ning in the 1970s, PMCs now have a solid rec-ord of performance and reliability, and are rap-idly becoming baseline structural materials in thedefense/aerospace industry.4 In the future, mili-tary investment in composite materials is ex-pected to grow rapidly. Composites will be en-abling technologies for new programs such as theNational Aerospace Plane.

3 lbid.4Suppliers of Advanced Composite Materials Association, Annual

Meeting and Industry Conference, May 5-8, 1987.

Ch. n-The Military Role in Advanced Materials Development ● 2 7 1

Table 11-1. -U.S. Government Agency Funding for Advanced Structural Materiais in Fiscai Year 1987(millions of dollars)

Ceramics andceramic matrix Polymer matrix Metal matrix Carbon/carbon

Agency composites composites composites composites Total

Department of Defensea. . . . . . . . . . . $21.5 $33.8 $29.7 $13.2 $98.2Department of Energy. . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.0 — — 36.0National Aeronautics and

—

Space Administration . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0 5.0 5.6 2.1 19.7National Science Foundation . . . . . . 3.7 3.0 — 6.7National Bureau of Standards . . . . . .

—3.0 0.5 1.0 — 4.5

Bureau of Mines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 — — 2.0Department of Transportation . . . . . . — 0.2 — 0.2

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $73.2 $42.5 $36.3 $15.3 $167.3alncludes only budget categories 6.1-6.3A.

SOURCE: OTA survey of agency representatives.

PMCs are under consideration for several sys-tems including the Navy’s V-22 Osprey (at thiswriting in prototype production using PMCs), theArmy’s LHX helicopters,5 and the Air Force’s Ad-vanced Tactical Fighter (ATF).6 7 Military researchin PMCs has aimed at achieving higher operat-ing temperatures, higher toughness, lower radarobservability, and reduced weight, among othergoals. For these reasons, military policies and reg-ulations will continue to have a major effect onthe future of these materials as they stat-t to beused more commercially.

Although DoD provides the major market forU.S. advanced material suppliers, DoD policiesand methods can conflict with industry goals andpreferences regarding the development of ad-vanced materials. One source of conflict is thatbetween national security interests and economicneeds in terms of foreign trade in advanced ma-terials. The conflict arises because such materi-als are a critical element in many new weaponssystems, hence the military prefers to restrict their

5The Army has recently restructured the LHX program; the res-tructuring plan is pending the approval of the Defense AcquisitionBoard. Brendan M. Greeley, Jr., “Army to Award Parallel Contractsfor Revised Development of LHX,” Aviation Week and Space Tech-nology, Mar. 14, 1988, p. 247,

6Composite News, Advanced Composites, January/February 1987.7“Materials Pace ATF Design,” Aerospace America, Apr. 1987,

pp. 16-22.

availability; at the same time though, these ma-terials, through their potential use in a wide va-riety of civilian manufactured products, couldplay a valuable role in U.S. economic develop-ment and international trade.

A second source of conflict lies in how defensesystems are procured by the Federal Govern-ment. DoD has two primary goals relating toprocurement: securing a reliable domestic tech-nology base, and having the widest spectrum oftechnologies available at the lowest possible cost.To achieve these goals, DoD employs a varietyof incentives and regulations in its procurementprograms. Participation by industry in these pro-grams is more dependent on these DoD policiesthan on conventional economic criteria.8

Military advanced materials R&D investmentscould make a significant contribution to the com-petitiveness of U.S. firms. However, several con-troversial issues need to be addressed in orderto make this contribution more effective. Theseinclude: export and reexport controls on prod-ucts and technical information, access to data onmaterials, and materials procurement policies.

8Technology Management Associates, “Industrial Criteria for In-vestment Decisions in R&D and Production Facilities, ” OTA con-tractor report, Jan. 28, 1987.


EXPORT

U.S. export control policies have been recentlyreviewed in the context of balancing nationalsecurity and economic development goals. 9 Ad-vanced materials technologies are considered tobe “dual-use” technologies (as are, for instance,microelectronics or machine tools) because theyhave both civilian and military applications. Assuch, they are subject to U.S. export controls. Ac-cordingly, the U.S. export control regime is animportant factor in the present and future devel-opment of advanced materials in the UnitedStates.

U.S. Export Control Regime

Export of advanced materials products andtechnical information about advanced materials

9National Academy of Sciences, Balancing the National Interest:U.S. National Security Export Controls and Global Economic Com-petition, (Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1987).

CONTROLS

is currently controlled under a complex regimeof laws and regulations. The Federal agencies re-sponsible for export control are listed in table 11-2. Export control responsibility lies by Iaw10 pri-marily with the Departments of Commerce andState. DoD influences the policymaking of thesedepartments and has power of refusal over ex-port license applications, but has no export con-trol authority of its own, as mandated by the Ex-port Administration Act of 1979 (Public Law96-72).

The Departments of Commerce and State eachhave their own lists of technologies that areexport-controlled: the Department of Commerceadministers the U.S. Commodity Control List; the

IOExpon Administration Act, 1979, Public Law 96-72; EXPOftAdministration Act of 1981, Public Law 97-145; Export Adminis-tration Amendments Act, 1985, Public Law 99-64; Arms Export Con-trol Act, 1976, Public Law 94-329.

Table n-2.-The Export Control Regime

U.S. agency Controls Regulations Technology list

Department of Commerce(International TradeAdministration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dual-use technologies

Department of State (Officeof Munitions Control). . . . . . . . . Defense articles, defense

services, and relatedtechnical data

Department of Defense. . . . . . . . . Advisory only

lnternational (CoCom)

Export Administration US. Commodity Control ListRegulations (EAR)

International Traffic in U.S. Munitions ListArms Regulations (ITAR)

Guidelines only Militarily CriticalTechnologies List (MCTL)

NATO countries except Iceland,plus Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dual-use technologies None, Nontreaty International Commodity

[Arms] Agreement Control List, or CoCom[Atomic Energy] International List

Other U.S. Agencies Role

Department of the Treasury(U.S. Customs).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Enforcement

Department of Justice. . . . . . . . . . Enforcement

Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . Nuclear Energy andWeapons Technologies

Nuclear RegulatoryCommission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nuclear Energy and

Weapons Technologies

NASA, Intelligence Agencies. . . . Advisory

National Security Council. . . . . . . Advisory, DisputeResolution

NOTE: CoCom Arms and Atomic Energy controls are similar to U.S. Department of State and U.S. Department of Energy controls, respectively.SOURCE: National Academy of Sciences, “Balancing the National Interest,” 1987.

Ch. 11-The Military Role in Advanced Materials Development ● 273

Department of State administers the U.S. Muni-tions List. DoD maintains a separate list of tech-nologies, called the Militarily Critical Technol-ogies List (MCTL), that it uses as a guideline onexport control matters. Congress originally man-dated in 1979 that DoD develop the MCTL to bea guideline of those technologies that are criti-cal for national defense.11 Congress subsequentlymandated in 1985 that the MCTL be merged withthe U.S. Commodity Control List;12 however, thismerger has not occurred. The MCTL is currentlyonly a guideline and has no other standing in reg-ulation or law.

I I ExPOfi ,Adrnl~lStratiOrl Aa of 1979, Public Law 9.6-72.12Export Adminlstratlon Amendments Act of 1985, public Law

99-64.

Table 11-3 describes how advanced materialsare included in each of the lists. The U.S. Com-modity Control List covers dual-use technologiesand information, and is found at the end of theExport Administration Regulations (EAR). it hasseparate sections for 1 ) ceramics and ceramic ma-trix composites; 2) organic matrix materials; and3) carbon fibers, polymer matrix composites, andmetal matrix composites. Certain materials arespecified in detail (e.g., polyamides, carbon fiberswith certain stiffnesses and strengths), while othermaterials are described in a less specific way (forinstance, metal matrix composites, which are de-scribed as structures or manufactures made witha metal matrix utilizing any of some specified fi-brous or filamentary materials). The U.S. Com-

Table 11-3.—Export Controls on Advanced Materials

Administrative agency Citation

Department of Commerce (EAR)U.S. Commodity Control Lista

15 CFR Ch. III399.1

Ceramics, ceramic matrix composites

Organic matrix materials

Carbon fibers,composites,

polymer matrixmetal matrix composites

Department of State (ITAR)U.S. Munitions Lista

22 CFR Ch. I121.1

Ablative materials fabricated orsemifabricated from advancedcomposites

Department of DefenseMilitarily Critical Technologies Listb

Part A: Arrays of Know-HowPart B: Keystone EquipmentPart C: Keystone MaterialsPart D: Goods Accompanied by

Sophisticated Know-How

ECCN 1733A“Base Materials, noncomposite ceramic

materials, ceramic-ceramic compositematerials and precursor materials for themanufacture of high temperature to hightemperature fine technical ceramicproducts”

ECCN 1746A“Polymeric substances and manufactures

thereof” (includes polyamides, aromaticpolyamides)

ECCN 1763A“Fibrous and filamentary materials that may

be used in composite structures orlaminates and such composite structuresor laminates”

Category IVLaunch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic

missiles, rockets, torpedos, bombs, andmines

5.0 Materials and Processing TechnologyGroup 3 General Industrial EquipmentECCN #S 1733A, 1746A, 1763A(various products and equipment)

NOTES: Export Administration Regulations (EAR) refer to some technologies in detail (PMCs, reinforcement fibers) and othertechnologies in a more general manner (MMCs).International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) refer only to ablative materials, which include MMCs.The Militarily Critical Technologies List (MCTL) refers to a wide range of advanced materials and related technologies,and is used as a guideline for approval of licenses,

SOURCES: aU.S. Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of Jan. 1, 1987.bU.S. Militarily Critical Technologies List (unclassified version, Oct. 1984).


modity Control List also covers products and sys-tems made from advanced materials, such asaircraft and components.

The Department of States’ U.S. Munitions Listcovers defense articles, services, and related tech-nical information and is found at the end of theInternational Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).The only materials specified in this list are abla-tive materials (which are usually taken to includecarbon/carbon and certain metal matrix compos-ites). The Department of Defense’s Militarily Crit-ical Technologies List specifies many aspects ofmaterials in varying degrees of technical detail,including equipment for producing these mate-rials, some products and systems made fromthese materials, and technical information relatedto all of the above.

In some cases the responsibility for control isnot clear from the lists. For instance, there is somedispute as to whether MMCs are controlled asa directly military technology under the interna-tional Traffic in Arms Regulations administeredby the Department of State (U.S. Munitions List),or under the Export Administration Regulations(U.S. Commodity Control List) administered bythe Department of Commerce (see box A). Nor-mally, these two lists do not overlap in content.Except for its claim to regulate ablative materialstechnology, the Department of State does not reg-ulate the export of any other advanced materi-als commodities or information. Because both theDepartment of Commerce and the Departmentof State send export license applications to DoDfor approval, DoD has a very influential positionin export controls despite the fact that it is not

Box A.— Export Control of Metal Matrix Composite Products and Information

The case of export control of MMCs provides a particularly confusing situation. The vast majority ofMMC production is for military use. The Department of State has responsibility for licensing weapons andmunitions and related technical data. The Department of Commerce licenses export of dual use itemsand related technical data. See table 11-2 for a description of the export control regime.

Both products and information related to MMCs are explicitly described in the Commodity ControlList of the Department of Commerce export control regulations.13 The Department of State’s MunitionsList cites “ablative materials” (usually taken to include carbon/carbon composites and certain metal ma-trix composites) used in such systems as launch vehicles and guided missiles. See table 11-3 for a descrip-tion of advanced structural materials citations in the several export control lists.

Neither list is specific about which MMCs are controlled, and there is disagreement over which agencycontrols MMC information (technical data) as opposed to products. Because both agencies have regula-tions concerning the export of these materials, there is no one agency to which companies can routinelysend all MMC export license applications. This has led to additional delays in processing of MMC exportlicense applications.

Even after a license application has been submitted, the procedure is not clear as to whom it mustbe referred and which agency has final authority to issue or deny a license. This is due to the ambiguityin the technical descriptions of MMCs in the two control lists, and the overlap between Commerce andState regulations. In cases where license applications have been submitted to both agencies, contradictoryresponses have been received.14

Several actions could help alleviate this situation. Regulations regarding the control of MMCs couldbe rewritten to clarify which agency controls what types of MMC products and information. Both agenciesshould coordinate in a timely fashion to accomplish this objective. This activity could be mediated bythe National Security Council. Consultations with the Materials Technical Working Group within DoDand the new Materials Technical Advisory Committee in the Department of Commerce could also helpin developing regulations that are technically clear and relevant.

I ~MMcs are found in the u .s, Commodity Control List (15 CFR 399.1, Supplement 1, Group 7), u rider the section on fibrous and fi Iamentary materi-

als, ECCN 1763A, (d).“’’lndustrlal Investment in Advanced Materials,” OffIce of Technology Assessment workshop, Washington, DC, Dec. 15-16, 1986.


permitted by Congress to have regulatory con-trol over exports.

There is also an informal international exportcontrol agreement between the United States, allof the other NATO countries (except Iceland),and Japan. This set of countries has establishedthe Coordinating Committee for Export Controls,or, informally, CoCom. For over 40 years, theCoCom countries have maintained lists of tech-nologies that they have agreed to restrict fromexport to proscribed country destinations. Theprincipal such list, called the CoCom interna-tional List, is similar to the U.S. Commodity Con-trol List of the Department of Commerce exceptthat the U.S. list includes 27 categories of dual-use products that are not on the CoCom list.15

in addition, there are also two CoCom lists formunitions and atomic energy that are similar toU.S. control lists for these technologies.

Effects of Export Controls

Export controls are very important to nationalsecurity. 16 Proscribed countries have three op-tions for acquiring Western defense technologies:through espionage, diversions, or through legalpurchases. Export controls exist to preventproscribed countries from directly exploiting thelatter two methods. Controls on exports tofriendly nations are intended to prevent diver-sions to proscribed countries. However, exportcontrols are sometimes at odds with the eco-nomic objectives of the open, free-market soci-eties of the Western allies.17

The main problem with the export control re-gime is its size and complexity. The sheer num-ber of agencies, laws, regulations, and guidelinescauses confusion for companies applying for ex-port licenses. In fact, some companies find it nec-essary to hire lawyers or consultants simply forthe purpose of filling out and tracking exportlicense applications.

One of U.S. industry’s main complaints aboutexport control regulation is the time taken toprocess an export license application. Becauseadvanced materials export license applicationsusually require interagency referral, delays arelonger than average for decisions regarding theselicenses (see box B). The possibility that a U.S.exporter will face long delays or wiII not receivea license can be enough to discourage foreigncustomers from buying U.S.-manufactured prod-ucts. 1 8

A further complaint of the industries subject toexport control involves the MCTL. Presently, theambiguous status of this list is causing confusionamong these industries. The integration of theMCTL with the U.S. Commodity Control List hasnot yet been done and the MCTL is still nomi-nally only a guideline. However, there have beencharges that this list is being used de facto to con-trol the export of tech nologies.25 For instance, in-dustry sources contacted by OTA consider it tobe as important to amend the MCTL as the U.S.Commodity Control List.

Although export controls affect a variety ofhigh-technology industries, there are someaspects of export control (e.g., reexport controls)that affect the advanced materials industries moreseverely than some other industries. This is be-cause materials are controlled as raw and proc-essed materials (e. g., powders, fibers), as partsand components (e.g., missile nose cones), andas subsystems (e.g., aircraft wings). At all of thesestages, advanced materials are also subject toreexport controls.

Reexport Controls

The United States is the only CoCom membercountry that requires companies within foreigncountries to request U.S. permission to reexportU.S.-made dual-use items, and foreign-madeproducts with U.S.-made components.26 These

15National Academy of Sciences, op. cit., 1987.16 For a full discussion of the reasons behind export controls, see

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Techrro/ogyarrdEast- West Trade: An Update, ” OTA-ISC-209 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, May 1983).

1 TNational Academy of Sciences, op. cit., 1987.

18Technology Management Associates, “Industrial Criteria for in-vestment Decision in R&D and Production Facilities, ” contractorreport prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, Jan. 28,1987, p. 42. See also U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Technology Transfer to China, ” OTA-I SC-340 (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1987).

zsNational Academy of Sciences, op. cit., 1987.zcNational Academy of Sciences, Op. cit., 1987.

— .


Box B.— Export License Application Processing

According to the Department of Commerce, the average processing time for license applications thatneed no interagency or CoCom referral (80 percent of cases for all information and products) is downto nine calendar days from the receipt of the application until the time the license is issued, as of Decem-ber 1987.19 The average processing time is 52 days for cases requiring referral (CoCom or interdepartmen-tal). 20 (Usually license applications are referred to CoCom only for shipments to Communist countries.)

The Department of Commerce processed about 122,000 license applications total in fiscal year 1985,up from approximately 71,000 in fiscal year 1981.21 In about 5 percent of the 1985 license applications,processing times were over 100 days.22

The Department of Commerce already has in place the System for Tracking Export License Applica-tions (STELA), a computerized voice answering service that allows exporters to monitor the status of theirlicense applications. DoD has a similar system, called the Export License Status Advisor, ELlSA.

Early in 1987, the Department of Commerce announced reforms in the export controls that it ad minis-ters.23 New types of licenses are being made available to simplify the application procedure for a smallnumber of exports to some of the CoCom countries. Average license application times were reduced forapplications not needing referral. The Department of Commerce also proposed to loosen export restric-tions on low-technology exports (e.g., personal computers) to non-CoCom countries. Parts and compo-nents regulations have also been modified.24

lglain Baird, us, Depa~ment of Commerce, personal Communication, Jan. 4, 1988.Zolbld,

21 National Academy of Sciences, op. cit., 1987.ZZlbid.

zlMalcolm BalcJrige, Department of Commerce News, Feb. 9, 1987.jdDaniel Cook, u .S. C)epat-tment of Commerce, personal communication, JUIY 30, 1987.

reexport controls exist to make sure that prod- One example of de-Americanization is the bar-ucts ‘licensed for export from the United Statesto a particular foreign country do not end up inproscribed countries. However, many countriesfeel that these controls represent unwarranted in-terference in their political and commercialaffairs.

The unilateral emphasis of the United States onreexport controls can result in a competitive dis-advantage for U.S. firms. Foreign companies areconcerned about potential loss of time andmoney involved in using U.S.-manufacturedproducts. A reexport license application requiresadditional time to process here in the UnitedStates. It also requires significant effort on the partof the government of the reexporting country tomake sure that those products requiring reexportcontrol are dealt with accordingly.

In some cases, these controls have led to aprocess of “de-Americanization” in which for-eign manufacturers avoid the use of U.S.-madeproducts to sidestep the U.S. reexport controls.

ring of companies in countries requiring reexportlicenses from bidding on supply contracts for theNATO fighter.27

For parts and components, the present reex-port control regulations require that a foreignmanufacturer get a reexport license” if the U. S.-made content of a foreign-made system exceeds25 percent of the total content (dollar value), forexports to CoCom countries and specified ThirdWorld countries. For proscribed country desti-nations, the limit on U.S.-made parts and com-ponents is 10 percent and $10,000.28

This means that if an aircraft built by a com-pany in a CoCom member country includesenough U.S.-made composite parts to fall underthe U.S. export control regulations, this company

ZzConference on export controls sponsored by the U.S. Depart-

ment of Commerce for the United States Advanced Ceramics Asso-ciation, Feb. 24, 1987.

Zalain Baird, Department of Commerce, personal COm KrUniCa-

tion, Jan. 4, 1988.


must apply to the United States for a reexportlicense, as well as to the country of manufacturefor an export control license for the entire air-craft. Canada has a similar restriction in that itrequires a reexport license for systems contain-ing greater than 80 percent U.S.-made (not Cana-dian-made) parts and components. These reex-port control regulations similarly affect thecomputer chip and avionics industries.

For U.S. products that are to be reexported ontheir own, rather than as part of a system, a reex-port license must be obtained for quantities abovea certain dollar value. This dollar value is thesame as the limit for export from the UnitedStates, as given in the U.S. Commodity ControlList.

For some products, e.g., ceramics, this thresh-old dollar value is zero. This low a threshold ischosen to enable control of export of inexpen-sive items that are critical for weapons systems,e.g., ceramic rocket nose cones; however, ad-vanced ceramic products of greater commercialuse are also under this reexport restraint. This sug-gests that export or reexport control of materialsper se may be less efficacious than a moreproduct-specific form of control.

Industry Representation

One mechanism for ensuring that commercialconcerns are taken into account in U.S. exportcontrol policy is to have representation bynondefense-related industry in policy planningof export controls. Review of the CoCom list iscarried out primarily by defense contracting in-

dustry personnel, and defense and national se-curity-oriented government representatives.There is no trade-oriented representation on theboard that reviews CoCom lists. Of particularconcern in this assessment is the lack of chan-nels open for helpful input from the advancedmaterials industries in export policy controls.

In response to the written requests from a sub-stantial segment of the advanced materials indus-tries, the Department of Commerce formed a Ma-terials Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) inApril 1986 to advise and assist in policy discus-sions stemming from the Export AdministrationAmendments Act (Public Law 99-64) of 1985.29The TAC will provide advice to the Departmentof Commerce on such issues as technical speci-fications, worldwide availability, licensing proce-dures, and unilateral or multilateral exportcontrols.

This materials TAC was formed with the intentof ensuring a more broad-based industry partici-pation in the Commodity Control List reviewprocess. To be successful, the committee mustbring together members with technical expertisein all of the relevant materials technologies, in-cluding those with a trade-oriented viewpoint,and give them a meaningful role in the policy re-view process. As of this writing, the committeehad received many applications for member-ship. 30

zgcha~er of the Deprtment of Commerce Materials Technical

Advisory Committee, April 1986.JOjeff Tripp, (J .s. Department Of cOf?I merce, IIerSOnal com mu-

nication, Sept. 21, 1987.

INFORMATION CONTROLS

Perhaps even more than materials themselves,information about how to process them into high-performance structures is considered critical tothe national defense. However, excessive con-trols on the dissemination of such informationcan also impede timely development of thesetechnologies in the United States. This informa-tion, called “technology” or “technical data”within the system of export controls, can consistof software, patent applications, technical speci-

fications, blueprints, operating manuals, or eventechnical advice.

To impede the flow of such information toproscribed country destinations, various restric-tions, including export license requirements, areimposed by the Federal Government. An individ-ual validated license (IVL) is required by the De-partment of Commerce for each advanced ma-terials information transaction with a foreign


national. Individual validated licenses for up toa 2-year period can be issued for related infor-mation transfers to the same company.

The above descriptions of export-controlled in-formation are very broad. One guideline used bythe Department of Commerce is to regard export-restricted technical data as any information re-lating to dual-use or military technologies thatcould be considered proprietary .31 However, itis not always obvious what information falls inthis category.

It is also difficult to determine what organiza-tions are to be considered foreign. Since the ad-vanced materials industries are increasingly globalin scope, and there is an intermingling of U.S.and foreign advanced materials business interests(see ch. 9), the concept of corporate nationalityis becoming less and less meaningful. The De-partment of Commerce currently intends to pub-lish a guideline for determining what constitutesan export of information to a foreign national .32

The primary mechanism for information con-trol by the Federal Government has long beenthe classification system, as reaffirmed in thePresident’s National Security Decision Directive

Jljim Seevaratnam, conference on export controls sponsored by

the U.S. Department of Commerce for the United States AdvancedCeramics Association, Feb. 24, 1987.

32 lbid.

189 of 1985. Currently, information on advancedmaterials can also be controlled by ITAR restric-tions; EAR restrictions; the Defense AuthorizationAct of 1984 (Public Law 98-94), which permitsrestriction of sensitive information (i.e., informa-tion on any technology with military or space ap-plications); and government contract restrictions.The many overlapping mechanisms for informa-tion control (see table 11-4) can be confusing.

In addition to these mechanisms, there are ahost of internal DoD directives, instructions, andguidelines for controlling dissemination of infor-mation (table 11-5). The personnel obliged to ap-ply these directives are those within the defenseagencies, defense contractors, and the Office ofthe Secretary of Defense (OSD). These directivesand instructions are developed for national secu-rity reasons for the control of classified andunclassified information in the context of com-munications with foreign governments, foreignrepresentatives, and international organizations.

There is a tradeoff inherent in any system ofinformation control between simplicity and flex-ibility. The present system of many control mech-anisms allows flexibility in targeting distributionof information to different audiences. However,having many mechanisms has seemed arbitraryto the private sector and can have a chilling ef-fect on legitimate exchanges of information. A

Table 11-4.-Mechanisms for Controlling Information on Advanced Materials

Mechanism Agency Controls How to access/transferInternational Traffic in Department of State Office of

Arms Regulations Munitions Controls(ITAR) ExportControls

Export Administration Department of CommerceRegulations (EAR) Export AdministrationExport Controls Office

Defense Authorization Undersecretary of Defense forAct of 1984 (10 U.S.C. Acquisition within the130) Department of Defense

Classification Department of CommerceInformation SecurityOversight Office

Contract Clauses Federal AcquisitionRegulations Council

Information on defensearticles, services, andrelated technical data

Information on “dual-use”technologies

“Sensitive” information withmilitary or spaceapplications—blocksrequests under the Freedomof Information Act (PublicLaw 93-502)

Classified information of anynature

Any work done for thatcontract

Apply for an export license

Apply for an export license

Not to be exported; Canadian,U.S. resident aliens and U.S.access granted throughcertification form DD 2345,“Militarily Critical TechnicalData Agreement”

Security procedures includingclearance and a need toknow

Distribution can be clearedthrough the contractingagency

SOURCE: Frank Sobieszczyk, U.S. Department of Defense, personal communication, Nov. 10, 1987.- .

Ch. 11-The Military Role in Advanced Materials Development “ 279

Table 11-5.—Department of Defense Directivesand Instructions for Information Control

Directives:5230.27 Presentation of DoD-Related Scientific and

Technical Papers at Meetings (Oct. 6, 1987)

5230.25 Withholding of Unclassified Technical Datafrom Public Disclosure

5230.24 Markings on Technical Documents (Mar. 6,1987)

instructions:5230.17 Procedures for Disclosure of Military

Information to Foreign Governments andInternational Organizations

5230.20 Control of Foreign RepresentativesNOTE: For additional directives and instructions that can be used to control in-

formation relating to advanced materials, see table 11-4.

SOURCE Frank Sobieszczyk, US Department of Defense, personal communi-cation, Nov. 10, 1987.

simpler system, e.g., one involving greater reli-ance on classification, would be more easily com-prehended and complied with by the private sec-tor, but such a system would reduce the abilityto control the distribution of information in a flex-ible manner.

The current information controls can have sig-nificant effects on joint ventures, licensing agree-ments, and customer relations between U.S. andforeign companies. License applications for ad-vanced materials information transfer must befiled to enter into negotiations, during the nego-tiation process, and after the agreement is made.Significant license application processing delayscan discourage the formation of these joint ven-tures by undermining the faith of a potential for-eign partner in the U.S. firm.

Such joint venture and licensing agreementsare important to U.S. advanced materials firms.Because the role of the end-user is so significantto investment in advanced materials, materialssupplier companies often enter into joint venturesor licensing agreements with end-users to de-velop a particular technology. Currently, end-usercompanies willing to explore the commercial pos-sibilities of advanced materials are more easilyfound in foreign countries. Consequently, someU.S. companies assert that to develop certain ma-terials technologies at all, they must be able toconduct joint venture or Iicensing arrangementswith foreign-owned companies.

Closed Conferences*

In 1982, there was a disruption of a Society ofPhoto-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE)conference when, 2 weeks before the confer-ence, DoD informed the society that 20 percentof the 219 papers scheduled, including paperswith sponsors other than DoD, could not be pre-sented, even in a closed session.33 34 Since then,there have been fears on the part of professionalsocieties that DoD restrictions on presentationsat conferences (particularly restrictions imposedat the last minute) will have an adverse effect onboth the organization and the conference.

DoD currently imposes certain limits on tech-nical conferences to prevent the export of tech-nology with national security implications, whilestill permitting its distribution to interested U.S.citizens. In recent years, some professional engi-neering societies have closed conferences or partsof conferences on their own initiative for fear oflast-minute removal of key papers sponsored byDoD. The most notable examples in advancedmaterials have been conferences on PMCs.

At present, most closed conferences only haveone or two closed sessions and foreign nationalsmay attend the other sessions.35 In other cases,however, only the exhibit area of a conferenceis open to foreign nationals, and the advancedtechnology meetings are closed. DoD maintainsthat the use of closed sessions at open confer-ences permits the dissemination of DoD-spon-sored research that might otherwise be with-held.36 Critics note, however, that even the closedsessions are frequently limited in technicalcontent.

*CIosed conference sessions are those from which foreign na-tionals are excluded; however, see footnote 35.

JJ’’lncident over SPIE Papers Muddies Scientific Secrecy Issue, ”Physics Today, June 1985, pp. 55-57.

J4Eric J. Lerner, “DOD Information Curbs Spread Fear and Con-fusion,” Aerospace America, Mar. 1985, pp. 76-80.

35Exceptions are foreign nationals from countries whose defense

ministries have science and technology agreements with DoD. For-eign nationals from these countries may obtain permission to at-tend closed sessions. For instance, for advanced composites, thesecountries are: Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, andAustralia.

36The procedures for presenting information at a Conference with

foreign national attendees are the same as those for transmittinga document to a foreign national.


Such restrictions on conference attendancealso cause ill-will among foreign researchers andare in any case not a reliable means of preventinginformation transfer, since a determined individ-ual can readily obtain conference proceedingsor admittance to closed sessions. Furthermore,they may be self-defeating from a national pointof view in areas where foreign companies andresearchers have developed superior technology.

Department of Defense-GeneratedDatabases

There is a wide variety of technical informa-tion on advanced materials generated by the mil-itary. One major source of this information is theDefense Technical Information Center (DTIC).Participants at an OTA workshop cited DTIC asan underused source of advanced materials tech-nical information and a more complete and up-to-date source than its civilian counterpart, theNational Technical Information Service (NTIS).37

DTIC maintains two major bibliographic data-bases, offering information on completed projectsthat have been sponsored by DoD and the armedservices, and on projects that are in progress.38

JT’’lndustrial Investment in Advanced Materials, ” Office of Tech-nology Assessment workshop, Dec. 15-16, 1987.

Jawiiliam Thompson, Defense Technical Information Center, per-

sonal communication, Mar. 26, 1987.

In addition, there is a database of military con-tractors’ industrial R&D.39 The characteristics ofthe three main databases and distribution listingsthat allow access to these databases are given intable 11-6. Anyone wishing access to these data-bases must be a registered user; that is, be en-dorsed by a DoD agency. To be endorsed, onemust be a past, current, or potential governmentcontractor, or a member of a government agency .40

All three databases contain some classified orproprietary information. A substantial amount ofinformation contained in DTIC is neither propri-etary nor classified but is still limited, meaningthat it is only available to registered users. Limitedinformation may consist of software documen-tation, technologies listed in the MCTL (includ-ing all advanced structural materials), technol-ogies falling under other types of export control,information furnished by foreign governments,or administrative information.41

Slightly less than 50 percent of the database oncompleted DoD-sponsored projects is cleared forpublic release and is available to NTIS. This in-formation is thereby available to anyone, whether

39Ibid.@charles Gould, Defense Technical Information Center, personal

communication, Mar. 26, 1987.41 Department of Defense Directive 5230.24, Distribution State-

ments for Use on Technical Documents, Mar. 18, 1987.

Table n-6.-Defense Technical Information Center Databases

Database Type of information Proprietary? Classified? Goes to NTIS?.Bibliographic

—

Work Unit InformationSystem

IR&D

Department of DefenseR&D Program Plannning(not in place yet)

Proposed Database

Published reports ofcompleted government-sponsored R&D

Government-sponsored R&Din progress

Company-sponsored researchof interest to government

Descriptive summaries

Database of all DoD agencydatabases

Not proprietary; someclassified

Not proprietary; someclassified

All proprietary and someclassified

Some classified

Both proprietary andclassified

50% does, all basic researchidentified as beingunclassified and unlimited

None; distribution only toDTIC-cleared users

None; only open to DoD andother agencies, notavailable to contractors

Possibly Congressionaldistribution; not open topublic

Distribution unknown(untitled) - -

NOTE: Each document in these databases is cleared for distribution to one of the categories of users below:a. U.S. Government onlyb. U.S. Department of Defense onlyc. U.S. Government agencies and their contractorsd. U.S. Department of Defense and its contractorse. Domestic public/U.S. citizens.

SOURCE: William Thompson, Defense Technical Information Center, personal communication, Mar. 28, 1987

Ch. 11-The Military Role in Advanced Materials Development . 281

a U.S. or foreign citizen.42 Information on DoD-sponsored projects in progress is available onlyto DTIC users and not to NTIS. Only a small per-centage of applied R&D in DTIC goes to NTIS.43

A DoD directive requires the individual armedservices to contribute information to DTIC data-bases. At present their compliance with this direc-tive represents only about 60 percent of knownreports.44 The armed services and other DoDagencies (e. g., the Defense Advanced ResearchProjects Agency, DARPA) maintain their own sep-arate technical databases. DTIC is now workingto develop a database of all available DoD agencytechnology databases.

Access to DTIC databases by firms not undercontract to the government is quite difficult be-

Qcharles Gould, op. cit., Mar. 26, 1987,qJWilliam Thompson, Defense Technical Information Center, per-

sonal communication, Mar. 26, 1987.44 Ibid.

cause DTIC is not authorized to extend informa-tion to other than contractors and potential con-tractors. A potential subcontractor company canbe helped to enter the defense community byworking with an established primary contractor.Each service also has a potential contractor pro-gram to help companies access the DTIC.

DTIC contains a significant amount of informa-tion on advanced materials that is neither pro-prietary nor classified (and would contain moreif the directive requiring submission of DoD-sponsored reports were fully complied with). Thisinformation would be of interest to commercial,market-oriented firms, but is unavailable to them.By permitting greater access to the technical in-formation in DTIC by commercial firms, subjectto necessary restrictions on proprietary or clas-sified information, DoD could help to make moreefficient use of its R&D investments, and to pro-mote the timely transfer of technology to thecommercial sector.

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FROM THE MILITARY

There has long been a debate over the extentto which technologies developed to fulfill DoDmission requirements can be spun off and usedin commercial applications.45 In general, technol-ogy transfer occurs most readily at the level ofbasic research.46 As the research becomes moresystem-specific, or in the case of military R&D,more mission-specific, transfer is more difficult.47

Effective technology transfer may also occurwhen the military and commercial applicationsare similar and the same companies are involved.

The military investment in advanced materialshas accelerated the development of the advancedmaterials industries, but its benefits for commer-cial use of the materials remain in doubt. On thepositive side, the fact that these higher perform-ance materials have been developed to the ex-tent that they have is largely due to the experi-ence gained by using these materials in weaponssystems. DoD funds a great deal of basic research. —

45J. David Roessner, “Technology Policy in the United States:Structures and Limitations, ” Technovation, vol. 5,1987, p. 240.

4Glbid.Az[bid.

of broad general interest. In addition, there canbe significant overlap between the materials re-quirements of certain military and commercialsystems. For instance, much of the PMC technol-ogy used in civil aircraft has been derived frommilitary PMC applications. As experience isgained in the production of these materials formilitary purposes, manufacturing costs can de-crease, thereby facilitating technology transfer tocommercial endeavors.

DoD also supports research in materials proc-essing technology; for instance, DoD’s Manufac-turing Technologies (ManTech) program (seetable 11-7) has provided funds for composite ma-terials processing research such as the B-1 B wingproject sponsored by the Air Force Materials Lab-oratory. 48 This project, conducted by Rockwell,Avco/Textron, and Hercules Aerospace, usesautomated tape laying, filament winding, andother innovative techniques to construct wing

“’Rockwell Team Demonstrates Automatic Construction of LargeComposite Wings,” Aviation Week &Space Technology, June 15,1987, pp. 333-338.

.— ——


Table 11-7.–Manufacturing Technology (ManTech)Program Funding Levels for Advanced Materials=

Related Projects (mllllons of dollars)

Fiscal Fiscal Fiscalyear year year

Category 1986 1987 1988.Air Forcea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 8.6 13.4Navy b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 3.0Army c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 1.4

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6 10.6 17.8

Total ManTechd funding . . . . . 205 124 165NOTES: About 3 percent of ManTech funding goes to the Defense Logistics Agen-

cy. While DARPA and SDIO sponsor signficant materials processingR&D, they are not formally under the ManTech Program.

SOURCES: aThomas Fitzgerald, U.S. Department of Defense, Air Force.bChris Current, U.S. Department of Defense, Navy.CKen Rice, Army Materials Technology Laboratory.dLloyd Lehn, U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of

Defense.

skins, box spars, ribs, and stiffeners. Total fund-ing for this program is $7.5 million since Septem-ber 1983.49 Research such as this, funded by themilitary, can lead to more cost-effective produc-tion methods.

However, in many cases, there are few tech-nical synergisms between military uses and po-tential commercial applications. The military ap-plications of advanced materials require highperformance, and cost is typically a secondaryconsideration. The difference in acceptable ma-terial and manufacturing costs between militaryand commercial structures can be orders of mag-nitude, and thus military production methods andmaterials may not be directly transferable.

The difference in acceptable costs is illustratedby the fact that the graphite fibers used in mili-tary PMC structures cost at least $25 per pound(and may cost over $1,000 per pound), whereasthe E-glass fibers used in automobiles cost $0.80per pound (see ch. 8). Large cost differences alsoexist between aerospace epoxy matrix materialsand automotive poly - and vinyl-ester matrices. 50

Similarly, the process of hand lay-up of PMCs,used in the production of military aircraft com-ponents, would be too expensive and time-con-suming to apply to automotive use. Hand lay-up

A91bid.SOP. BeardrnOre, C. F. Johnson, and G.G. Strosberg, “ Impact Of

New St ruc tura l Mater ia ls Techno logy–Case Study: Compos i te Au-

tomobile Frame, ” contractor report prepared for the Office of Tech-

no logy Assessment , Mar . 1987.

produces pounds per hour of material, whereas,to be economically feasible in automobile man-ufacturing, pounds of material per second mustbe produced, using such processes as resin trans-fer molding.

It is difficult to transfer technology when themilitary and commercial systems requirementsare different. The recently proposed NationalAerospace Plane (NASP) provides an illustrationof this. As a commercial aircraft, the NASP is en-visioned as passenger carrier that would be ableto fly halfway around the globe in 2 hours, open-ing up large potential markets of travel betweenthe United States and the Far East. Nicknamedthe “Orient Express” by President Reagan, thiscommercial aircraft would have to be able to at-tain speeds of about Mach 5 and be capable ofcruising at altitudes of 30 to 40 kilometers.51

The military is also interested in the NASP asa platform for launching small payloads intospace. Such a launch vehicle would have theadvantage of being reuseable and having conven-tional take-off and landing capability. However,military requirements for this type of plane aremuch higher than are necessary for a commer-cial version. The NASP is under consideration asan SDI launcher because it would offer much-needed lower launch costs. In contrast to theMach 5 capability of the commercial version, themilitary version would have to achieve Mach 25to attain Earth orbit.52 This could require differ-ent propulsion systems (turbo ram jet vs. scram-jet engines) as well as far more heat-resistant ma-terials than for the commercial plane. To meetthe extreme performance (high temperature) de-mands for the NASP, advanced materials tech-nologies will play a large part. For a cruising speedof Mach 3, average temperatures can reach 630°F (332° C) at the leading edges of wings.53

Titanium alloy aircraft skins start to weaken at1,000° F (538° C), which occurs after a few se-conds at Mach 5.54 At the higher Mach numbers,

‘ljerry Gr;y, “The Aerospace Plane: The Timing Is Right,” /ssuesin Science and Technology, Spring 1987, p. 18.

Szjames F. Loomis, Battelle Memorial Institute, Toward a t-fyper-sonic Commercial Transport, talk given at the Office of Technol-ogy Assessment, Washington, DC, Jan. 13, 1988.

53’’High Speed Commercial Flight: The Coming Era,” James P.Loomis, cd., (Columbus, OH, Batelle Press, 1987, p. 193.

54T.A. Heppenheimer, “Launching the Aerospace Plane, ” High

Technology, July 1986, p. 47.

Ch. 11-The Military Role in Advanced Materials Development “ 283

wing leading edge temperatures as high as 4,000° be required for the hottest structures, and metal

F (2,205° C) could be reached. Ceramic matrix matrix composites could be used in the cooler

composites or carbon/carbon composites would structures.

PROCUREMENT ISSUESMilitary markets for advanced materials are

unique in that the Federal Government is theprincipal customer. Because of this, participationof U.S. advanced materials companies is depen-dent on DoD policies and regulations, rather thanon conventional economic criteria. The overrid-ing DoD policy objectives are to secure reliabledomestic sources of advanced materials and thewidest selection of materials technologies at thelowest possible cost. DoD procurement policiesthat strongly influence the cost and availabilityof materials technologies include materials qual-ification requirements and domestic sourcingrequirements. DoD procurement issues not cov-ered in this assessment include military specifica-tions and DoD auditing.55

Materials Qualification Databases

Before a material can be used in a military sys-tem, it must be “qualified” for use. As indicatedbelow, the time and cost involved in testing a ma-terial for qualification are substantial. While it isdesirable to have a rigorous screening procedureto assure performance and reliability, inefficien-cies in the present system of qualification can limitthe number of materials available and can addto their cost.

In the aerospace industry, materials databasesare continually being developed for the purposeof qualifying new materials or new combinationsof materials. Aerospace prime contractors con-duct extensive testing on potentially useful ma-terials, to avoid any possibility of liability due tostructural failure. Each prime contractor maintainsproprietary databases as well as expensive in-house testing facilities dedicated to its preferredmethods of testing. Taken together, though, these

SsFor a discussion of DoD procurement issues, see U.S. Congress,

Otlice of Technology Assessment special report, “The Defense Tech-nology Base: Introduction and Overview, OTA-ISC-374 (Washing-ton, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1988)

databases carry redundant information, and theirdevelopment is costly to the military, materialssuppliers, and prime contractors. Also, they re-quire a great deal of time to generate.

It costs as much as $10 million each for data-bases on individual new materials.56 This processcan involve up to 3,000 individual tests by theprime contractor and a similar amount by the ma-terial supplier.57 Most of this $10 million for adatabase comes from the Federal Government.58

This is the cost of a first database development;retesting for these databases occurs at a cost ofroughly $1.5 million per additional set of tests.59

Under the present system, if six contractors in-tend to use a given material for an application,the material is qualified six times, each by a sep-arate set of tests. If the same material is used bythe same contractor but in a different application,it must be qualified again.

The cost of qualification varies depending onhow much of the material is new (see table 11-8for types of material and associated costs). Thetime taken in qualifying a new material can bemore important to a company than the directcost; it can take up to 2 years to qualify a newmaterial.60 Overall, the time and expense in-

sbMichael Dubberly, Naval Air Command, Suppliers of Advanced

Composite Materials Association, Annual Meeting and Industry Con-ference, May 5-8, 1987.

STRichard Ostlund, Boeing Vertol Company, Suppliers of Ad-

vanced Composite Materials Association, Annual Meeting and in-dustry Conference, May 5-8, 1987.

Sg[ndevndent Research and Development (lR&D) funding is usedfor much of the development of these databases. IR&D funds arecharged to the Federal Government as overhead by contractingcompanies, for the purpose of internal research related to a givencontract. Generally these funds are some 2 to 6 percent of the con-tract and their use is determined by the company, with the gov-

ernment acting as an auditor. Government contractors considerIR&D money to be private in nature; there is a significant amountof debate in the Federal Government as to whether this overheadcharge should be considered public or private.

wDubberly, op . cit.

60Ibld.

7 5 - 7 9 2 0 - 88 - 7


Table n-8.-Qualification Costs of New Materials

Vendor/material cost Time to qualifv

Same material system;new vendor . . . . . . . . . . . . $300,000 6 months

Equivalent resin; samefiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.5 million one year

Same resin; new fiber. . . . . $6-8 million 18 monthsNew resin; new fiber . . . . . $10 million 2 yearsNOTE: Median values given. Cost depends on: how much material will be used,

in which parts of the plane, service environment, and specifications. Ingeneral, using the same material in a different application, the materialmust be requalified.

SOURCE: Michael Dubberly, Naval Air Command, Suppliers of Advanced Com-posite Materials Association, Annual Meeting and Industry Conference,May 5-8, 1987, Washington, DC.

volved in qualifying a new material can add upto a significant deterrent to testing new, possi-bly better materials in situations where there isalready an available qualified material.

No fully satisfactory solution to the problem ofovertesting has been suggested. However, pos-sibilities for reducing the number and cost of ma-terials databases have been proposed. DoD couldpromote the introduction of standardized testing.There are several groups that are each planningto develop limited sets of testing and materialsstandards. These are described in ch. 5, and in-clude: the Aircraft Industries Association Compos-ite Materials Characterization, Inc.; the Suppliersof Advanced Composite Materials Association;DoD’s Standardization Program, (CompositesTechnology Program Area), directed by the Armyfor use by the Military Handbook 17 (MI L-1 7);and the Amercian Society for the Testing of Ma-terials (ASTM). DoD could also promote greatersharing of data among prime contractors, and be-tween prime contractors and materials suppliers.However, this would meet with considerable re-sistance from prime contractors who see thesedatabases as proprietary in nature. Solutions tothe overtesting problem are likely to involve somecombination of the above.

Domestic Supply ofAdvanced Materials

There are several methods the Federal Govern-ment can use to ensure sufficient domestic sup-ply of strategic and critical materials and to pro-mote the well-being of the domestic industrial

base via Federal Government purchases.61 It ispossible to establish domestic supplies of variousproducts via the Defense Production Act of 1950(50 USC 2166a).62 Title Ill of that act authorizespurchase guarantees and loans to ensure domes-tic production capacity of certain materials (forinstance, purchase guarantees for stockpiling ofpitch-based fibers). It is also possible to establishdomestic supplies of materials via the amendedDefense Production Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-265)63, and the annual Defense Authorizationsor Appropriations Acts. 64

Present U.S. markets for composites are dom-inated by military needs. Accordingly, DoD andthe Congress have taken steps to ensure an ade-quate domestic supply and production capacityof certain composite constituents. Of particularimportance to the advanced PMC community isthe current requirement for assuring domesticsources for PAN (polyacrylonitrile) carbon fiberprecursor, which Congress mandated in the De-partment of Defense Appropriations Act of 1987.PAN precursor is drawn into fibers and thenheated to 1,600° F to form the carbon fiber.

Carbon fiber derived from PAN precursor is thesingle most important fiber used in advancedcomposites for aircraft and space applications. Asof this writing, 100 percent of PAN precursor forfibers qualified for military use is imported fromJapan and the United Kingdom. The United Statescurrently has domestic production facilities forall phases of PMCs, from fibers and resins to fin-ished components, except for the production ofPAN fiber precursor. Amoco Chemical Co. hasproduction facilities in the United States for PANprecursor but prior to this directive, the companywas not a qualified supplier. Although Amoco iscurrently working toward qualifying as a domesticmilitary supplier, DoD still requires a second do-mestic source, opening up opportunities for othercompanies as well.

The Congressional mandate follows an initia-tive by DoD to devise a plan (which has been

61 MarVi n Goldstein, Department of Defense, persona[ COrnrnu-

nication, March 30, 1987.62Ibid.63DoD identifies the specific projects after Congress authorizes

the funds.64 Ibid .


under consideration since 198565) for the devel-opment of a domestic base of PAN precursor pro-duction. Congress has set requirements for 15percent of all PAN used in military systems to bedomestically sourced by 1989; 20 percent by1990; 25 percent by 1991 and 50 percent by1992. 66 Congress also endorsed the planning ap-proach of DoD, which is to designate several hightechnology weapons programs to use 100 per-cent domestically-sourced PAN fiber. As of March1988, no guideline has been developed by DoDfor implementing this procurement plan.

The lack of a detailed plan has caused confu-sion among fiber vendors. Because material sup-pliers generally sell to particular prime contrac-tors for specific weapons systems, it is importantto industry to know the systems that will requiredomestic PAN fiber. Qualification of new fibers

——..—-b~BeCaUSe of the importance of PAN-based carbon fiber PMCs

to military systems, the Under Secretary of Defense for Researchand Engineering issued a statement in 1985 expressing concern thatthere be some domestic source of production of PAN fiber precur-sor, and a policy directive was subsequently developed for achievingthis.

66U.S. Congressional Record, No. 205, Part Ill, (Washington, DC,

U.S. Government Printing Office, Dec. 21, 1987), pp. HI 2546-547.

is also system-specific and must occur as the de-sign of the system occurs. This means that a newdomestic PAN precursor plant must be built intime to begin the qualification process while theweapon system design is still flexible. With noguarantees as to which systems would require do-mestic PAN fibers, individual companies do notknow whether undertaking such a sizable invest-ment would pay off.

Another concern on the part of potential U.S.precursor suppliers is that once production fa-cilities are established in the United States, theFederal Government will not want to pay highercosts incurred initially for domestic PAN fiberprecursor. A plant to produce PAN precursorcosts as much to build as a plant to produce thecarbon fiber from the precursor. 67 There is gen-eral agreement in industry that domestic fiber willcost more than imported fiber, at least in the be-ginning. Industry representatives are concernedthat commitment to domestic sources will nothold if less expensive foreign-made precursor isavailable.

67William Bennett, Amoco Performance Products, Inc., personalcommunication, Apr. 13, 1987.

OFFSETSOffsets involve an agreement between a U.S.

high technology systems manufacturer and a for-eign buyer in which production technology istransferred to the buyer to promote the sale. Off-sets are commonly used by U.S. aircraft manu-facturers to promote sales of aircraft abroad. His-torical examples of offsets include transfer ofaluminum forging or PMC technologies to suchnations as Canada, Sweden, France, Italy, Spain,the Netherlands, and Japan to encourage themto buy military aircraft such as the F-16 and theF-1 8, or commercial aircraft such as the Boeing757, the 767, and the McDonnell-Douglas MD-8 0 .6 8 6 9

b8James N, Burns, Hercules, Inc., persona! communication, Apr.20, 1987.bgcreg Ba~hold, Aluminum Company of America, perSOnal com-

munication, Mar. 5, 1987,

Offsets are useful in promoting U.S. foreign pol-icy interests. They also help achieve sales for U.S.aircraft manufacturers, who are not competingdirectly with the buyer. However, offsets can beharmful to the competitive position of materialssuppliers, since suppliers may be compelled totransfer proprietary technology to potential com-petitors abroad.

In accordance with the Defense Production ActAmendments of 1984 (Public Law 98-265), Con-gress requires an annual report on offsets fromthe Office of Management and Budget. However,the situation is not currently receiving much at-tention. This is because offsets are only a smallpart of a larger picture of aircraft sales, which in-cludes foreign policy goals such as rights to main-tain air bases, coastal access or protection, orother policies not directly related to the saleof aircraft. Foreign nations wishing to purchase


costly weapons systems require offsets to increasetheir domestic technology capabilities. Offsets arenot merely a practice concerning a foreign nationor buyer and a U.S. vendor as part of an aircrafttrade negotiation. They are part of the package offoreign policy actions that the United States un-dertakes as a military and economic superpower.

Offsets are a primary mechanism by which pro-prietary materials technology is transferredabroad. Advanced composite technology has al-ready been transferred via offsets by airframemanufacturers to Spain, Italy, Sweden, and Ja-pan on sales of commercial aircraft. Sales of mil-itary aircraft have included offsets of advancedaluminum processing technologies to Japan andFrance. Airframe manufacturers consent to off-sets because they are required by foreign coun-tries in requests for bids. Materials suppliers toler-ate this loss of proprietary technology becauseto do so allows them to compete in a situationwhere all suppliers must offer offsets.

Another practice related to offsets, and detri-mental to the U.S. advanced material supplier,is that of coproduction. A foreign country pur-chasing aircraft may require that parts of the air-craft be produced in that country. This is a situa-

tion where a U.S. prime contractor helps to setup a plant in a foreign country that is contractedto supply components or materials processingtechnology. This is technology that a U.S. ad-vanced materials company could supply.

Offset agreements, as with other types of tradein advanced materials, must receive exportlicenses to proceed. Export controls exist, how-ever, not for economic protection, but for na-tional security and foreign policy reasons. Thetrade-offs in offset agreements are not only be-tween national security and economic concerns,but also between national security and foreignpolicy. The two seemingly contradictory proc-esses of offsets and export controls are focusedon different goals (foreign trade, national secu-rity, and foreign policy) that are increasingly dif-ficult to pursue concurrently in the highly in-tegrated world marketplace.

There are many forms of offset practices. Al-though not easily calculated, their impacts on thecompetitiveness of advanced materials industriesare believed to be extensive by many industryexperts. A thorough, up-to-date analysis of thecosts and benefits of offsets is desirable.

THE BALANCE OF COMMERCIAL AND MILITARY INTERESTSWith the growing dependence of the military

on a range of high technologies, including ad-vanced materials, DoD can be expected to takea larger policy role aimed at ensuring a domes-tic production capacity for key technologies. Thelarge DoD funding for the Sematech Microelec-tronics Consortium ($100 million for 198870) isone example of this trend; the PAN precursorprocurement described above is another. DoDplans for a more comprehensive industrial pol-icy were described at a May 1987 workshop heldby the Suppliers of Advanced Composite Mate-rials Association (SACMA).71 This policy initiative,

701EEE Spectrum, February, 1988, P. 3.

71 RObefi Coste[lo, Department of Defense, Annual Meeting and

Industry Conference, Suppliers of Advanced Composite MaterialsAssociation, May 5-8, 1987.

intended for the preservation of the U.S. indus-trial base, proposes targeting particular technol-ogies, among them machine tools, bearings, cast-ings, semiconductors and advanced composites,for DoD support. The policy initiative will addresssuch issues as domestic technology erosion, avail-ability of trained scientists and engineers, acqui-sitions of U.S. firms by foreign firms, contract andregulatory reform, research and development,energy, intellectual property rights, internationalcooperation, U.S. government-i ndustry-academiacollaborations, and better relations between DoDand the business community. Targeting of par-ticular industries is deemed crucial.

If military investment is to benefit commercialmaterials applications, and vice versa, there mustexist a broader policy perspective on materials.

Ch. 11—The Military Role in Advanced Materials Development ● 287

To enhance the long-term competitiveness and interests more effectively. Options for taking bet-health of the advanced materials industries, it will ter commercial advantage of military investmentsbe essential to balance military and commercial are discussed in the next chapter.

Chapter 12

Policy Issues and Options

CONTENTSPage

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................291introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................292Projections Based on Continuation of the Status Quo . ....................295proposed Policy Objectives and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..295

Encourage Long-Term Capital investment by Advanced MaterialsEnd Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............296

Facilitate Government/University/Industry Collaboration in R&D forLow-Cost Materials Manufacturing Processes . ........................296

Facilitate More Effective Commercial Exploitation of Military R&DInvestments Where Possible . . . . . . . . . . . . . + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....298

Build a Strong Advanced Materials Technology Infrastructure . ............303Two Views of Advanced Materials Policies . .............................307Advanced Materials Policies in a Broader Context . .......................310

TablesTable No. Page

12-1.

12-2.12-3.

Commonly Cited Generic Barriers to Commercialization ofEmerging Technologies in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...296Share of Federal R&D Contracts Going to Small Business, 1979-86......299U.S. Materials and Minerals Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............307

Chapter 12

Policy Issues and Options

FINDINGS

Given the high risks associated with the com-mercialization of advanced materials, the Federalrole in accelerating this process is likely to con-tinue to be very important. OTA identifies fourgeneraI Federal policy objectives that could im-prove the climate for commercialization of ad-vanced materials in the United States. Optionsfor pursuing these objectives range from thosewith a broad scope, affecting many technologies,to those specifically affecting advanced materials.

Objective 1:Encourage long-term capital investment inadvanced materials by potential end users.

Greater advanced materials investments by po-tential end users would help to generate morecommercial market pull on advanced materialsin the United States. The climate for such invest-ments can be improved by several policy optionsaimed at making patient capital available, includ-ing providing tax incentives for long-term capi-tal investments, reducing the cost of capital byencouraging greater national savings, and com-prehensive tort law reform aimed at making prod-uct liability costs proportional to proven negligence.

Objective 2:Facilitate government/university/industrycollaboration in R&D for low-cost materi-als fabrication.

The high cost of advanced materials develop-ment and the small near-term markets are forc-ing companies to seek collaborative R&D ar-rangements to spread risks and raise the largeamounts of capital required. Three major reser-voirs of materials expertise are available to U.S.companies: universities, Federal laboratories, andsmall high-technology firms. At present, indus-try considers the scale-up costs too high and thepayoffs too uncertain to justify commercializationof research results from current industry/univer-sity and industry/Federal laboratory collabora-tions. The government could encourage the com-mercialization step by establishing collaborative

centers in which government and industry wouldshare the costs of downstream materials fabrica-tion technology development. An alternativewould be to provide incentives for large compa-nies to work with those small, high-technologyfirms that have advanced materials fabrication ex-pertise, but lack the capital to explore its com-mercial potential.

Objective 3:Facilitate more effective commercial exploi-tation of military R&D investments wherepossible.

The large U.S. military expenditures on ad-vanced materials technology development rep-resent a potential boost to the commercial com-petitiveness of U.S. firms, However, nationalsecurity restrictions imposed on militarily impor-tant materials and processes can also inhibit com-mercial development. Ultimately, both nationalsecurity and a competitive commercial manufac-turing base depend on a strong domestic ad-vanced materials capability. Therefore, a majorobjective of U.S. policy should be to balancethese conflicting interests, and, where possible,to make it easier for commercial firms to exploitthis resource. Among the options which couldbe considered area greater advisory role for com-mercial materials companies in reviewing exportcontrol policy; greater support for military pro-grams aimed at developing low-cost materials andfabrication processes; and clarification of militarydomestic sourcing policies for advanced ma-terials.

Objective 4:Build a strong advanced materials technol-ogy infrastructure.

A broad range of technical data and an ade-quate number of trained personnel must be avail-able to exploit materials technology develop-ments in a timely fashion, whether they originatein the United States or abroad. The Federal Gov-ernment could gather and disseminate informa-

29175-7920 - 88 - 8

—


tion on ongoing R&D projects, business statistics,and technical developments abroad. It could alsoprovide increased support for efforts aimed atestablishing standard test methods for advancedmaterials, and for the development of databasescontaining relevant design and processing infor-mation. Increased funding could also be providedfor university programs in advanced ceramics andcomposites, and for retraining programs for engi-neers who are not familiar with the new materials.

Congress and the Administration have adoptedconflicting views of advanced materials. Accord-ing to the congressional view, national goals andpriorities should be established for advanced ma-terials R&D above the agency level, and agencyspending on materials programs should be madeconsistent with them. This view is expressed inthe National Critical Materials Act of 1984, inwhich Congress established the National CriticalMaterials Council (NCMC) in the Executive Of-fice of the President. The NCMC is charged withthe responsibility of working with the principalfunding agencies and the Office of Managementand Budget to define national goals and priori-ties for materials R&D, and to coordinate the vari-ous agency efforts in developing a national pro-gram plan for advanced materials.

In the Administration’s view, priorities for ad-vanced materials R&D cannot be separated fromthe functional requirements of the structures in

which they are used. Because different agencieshave different requirements for materials, deter-mination of R&D priorities is best made at theagency level. According to this view, the infor-mation exchanged through various existing inter-agency materials committees is adequate to avoidexcessive duplication and waste. The NCMC isconsidered redundant with these committees.

OTA finds that it is more difficult to define na-tional policy goals for advanced materials thanfor more traditional critical materials. To succeedin its task, the NCMC will need to establish amore precise definition of the goals that wouldmotivate a national materials policy, as well asto develop high-level Administration commitmentto the concept of such a policy. At present, Con-gress and the Reagan Administration remain farapart in their views of the appropriate scope ofa national materials program plan, and of the roleof the NCMC. Pending the resolution of thesedifferences, there are three further functions thatthe

●

●

●

NCMC could perform:

a point of contact for monitoring industryconcerns and recommendations regardingjoint industry-government initiatives;gathering information on domestic and for-eign materials R&D efforts and disseminat-ing it to industry; anda broker for resolving conflicts between mil-itary and commercial agency goals for ad-vanced materials.

INTRODUCTIONAdvanced materials technologies clearly repre-

sent great potential opportunities for the U.S.economy. Today, materials account for between30 and 50 percent of the costs of most manufac-tured products. In the 1990s and beyond, intro-duction of new materials that can reduce overallproduction costs and improve performance willbean important factor determining the competi-tiveness of U.S. manufactured products such asaircraft, automobiles, and industrial equipment.

But will the United States be able to capitalizeon these opportunities? In spite of the fact thatthe United States invests more Federal money in

materials R&D than any of its foreign competi-tors, there is serious doubt as to whether U.S. in-dustry will aggressively transfer this R&D intocommercial products.

Perhaps the central finding of this assessmentis that potential commercial end users of ad-vanced materials, whose investment decisions aredetermined by expected profits, do not believethat use of these materials will be profitable withintheir planning horizon of 5 years. Thus, there isvirtually no market pull on these technologies inthe United States. While U.S. commercial endusers have placed themselves in a relatively pas-

Ch. 12—Policy Issues and Options ● 293

sive, or reactive role with respect to use of ad-vanced materials, their competitors, notably theJapanese, have adopted a more aggressive, “tech-nology push” strategy. This strategy involves in-corporating advanced materials into existingproducts to gain manufacturing experience forthe future. in contrast to the United States, whereindustry and government investments in ad-vanced ceramics and composites research areroughly comparable, in Japan such research isoverwhelmingly funded by private industry.

On the whole, a strong case can be made thatthe profit expectations of U.S. advanced materi-als end users are accurate, within the 5-year timehorizon. in most cases, it will take longer than5 years to develop solutions to the remainingtechnical and economic problems. Although pre-cise production cost data are not available, it islikely that Japanese structural ceramic compo-nents are not produced at a profit; rather, the Jap-anese firms gain the manufacturing experiencenecessary to position themselves favorably for fu-ture opportunities. Early indications are that theseefforts have been successful. While the U.S. De-partment of Energy has provided massive fund-ing to a consortium of companies to developceramic gas turbine engine prototypes for auto-mobiles since the late 1970s, the most highlystressed component of these engines, the ceramicturbine rotor, is currently made in Japan.

This Japanese technology push strategy is notwithout risks. In addition to reducing profits inthe near term, it may also lead to premature com-mitment to obsolescent technology. Historically,Japan has concentrated on making incrementalimprovements in the properties of monolithicstructural ceramics, whereas the United States hasgiven greater emphasis to developing tougher(and more expensive) ceramic matrix compos-ites (CMCs). Japan now appears to be shiftingmore resources toward CMCs.1

Ultimately, the future competitiveness of U.S.advanced materials industries in worldwide com-mercial markets will depend on the investmentdecisions made within the industries themselves.The risks of such investments are high. To de-

] Dick J. WiIkins, Director, Center for Composites Research,University of Delaware, personal communication, November 1987.

velop a manufacturing capability with advancedstructural materials requires enormous capital in-vestment, while the payoffs are often 10 to 20years away. However, most experts contacted byOTA stressed that manufacturing experience overtime with advanced materials is essential; U.S.companies cannot expect to step in and producecompetitive advanced materials products afterthe manufacturing problems have been solvedby others.

The Federal Government directly affects the de-velopment of advanced materials through fund-ing of basic research, technology demonstrationprograms associated with the missions of Federalagencies, and military/aerospace procurement ofadvanced materials and structures. State and Fed-eral policies and regulations, such as R&D tax in-centives and product liability laws, also indirectlyaffect the climate for industry investment in long-term, high-risk technologies such as advancedmaterials.

Of the roughly $167 million invested by theFederal Government in advanced structural ce-ramics and composites R&D in fiscal year 1987, *about 60 percent was sponsored by the military.This proportion would have been even higher ifmilitary funds for testing, evaluation, and classi-fied programs had also been included. Advancedmaterials are truly enabling technologies for mil-itary missions. Without their unique properties,including high strength and stiffness, light weight,and high-temperature capabilities, many of themajor military programs under development,such as the Strategic Defense Initiative, the Na-tional Aerospace Plane, and various Stealth weap-ons systems, would not be feasible.

Historically, programs within the Departmentof Defense (DoD) and, to a lesser extent, the Na-tional Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA), have driven the development of manyadvanced materials, particularly various kinds ofcomposites. The high cost of advanced materi-als for military applications is justified by the highperformance they deliver. As long as this empha-sis continues, the military will remain one of the

*This total encompasses R&D involving: monolithic ceramics; ce-ramic, polymer, and metal matrix composites; and carbon/carbon

composites.


largest and fastest growing markets for new ma-terials.

The commercial benefits of military materialsinvestments remain controversial. Military appli-cations often help to boost a new technology upthe learning curve, and new materials are madeavailable that otherwise would have gone unex-plored. However, because the cost of militarymaterials is typically high and production vol-umes are low, often neither the materials nor theproduction methods are appropriate for commer-cial applications. For national security reasons,the military may also place restrictions on the dis-semination of DoD-funded materials R&D, there-by creating an additional barrier to the diffusionof R&D results into the commercial sector.

In military applications, the government is thecustomer for materials technology and hardware.As such, it has an interest in securing stable, do-mestic sources of material supply. However, mil-itary markets will not be large enough to sustaina viable domestic advanced materials industry inthe future. Critics charge that the expanding mil-itary role is likely to skew the national advancedmaterials agenda toward development of moreexotic, high-performance materials, such as car-bon/carbon composites, and to low-volume,high-cost manufacturing processes that will haveat best indirect benefits for commercial applica-tions. These concerns are all the more acute giventhat the other countries–notably Japan, whichhas a very small military establishment–are al-ready giving heavy emphasis to commercial usesof advanced materials.

About 40 percent of Federal spending for ad-vanced structural ceramics and composites R&Dis nonmilitary in nature, including most of thatfunded by the Department of Energy (DOE),NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Na-tional Bureau of Standards, and the Bureau ofMines. These civilian agencies generally do notact as the procurers of hardware. Rather, theysponsor materials R&D performed by universities,Federal laboratories, and industry contractors.The R&D ranges from basic science to technol-ogy demonstration programs, according to theparticular agency’s mission objectives.

Where appropriate, the civilian agencies en-courage industry to commercialize the new tech-nologies. To date, though, these efforts have notbeen very successful, in large part because indus-try has lacked the near-term market incentivesnecessary to justify the costs of adapting thesetechnologies for commercial production. The re-cent concern about U.S. industrial competitive-ness has focused attention on how this federallyfunded research can be transferred more effec-tively to the private sector.

If U.S. advanced materials industries are to becompetitive in the future, more will be requiredthan early leadership based on military invest-ments. The United States has learned from bit-ter experience in microelectronics that early tech-nological dominance is no guarantee of long-termcompetitiveness. Technologies flow rapidly acrossnational borders, and a competitor who comessecond to market may enjoy the benefits of theleader’s efforts but have lower production costs.One example of the rapid loss of a new materi-als market is the electronic ceramics industry,which constitutes about 80 percent of the valueof all advanced ceramics produced today. In thepast 10 years, the United States has largely lostthe electronic ceramic components business toJapan, particularly in the important area of in-tegrated circuit substrates and packages.

Why has Japanese industry been able to makesuch a massive commitment to such a risky tech-nology as structural ceramics? Observers suggestseveral reasons. In Japan, aggressive movementinto promising new technologies is consideredless in terms of short-term economic return thanas a matter of long-term survival for Japanese in-dustry. This sense of vulnerability and urgencyis generally lacking in Western business plans.A second reason is that Japanese industry enjoysa relatively low cost of capital, in large part dueto the high national savings rate. A third reasonis the capacity of the Japanese system to spreadthe risks effectively among the many participantsin the precompetitive stage of technology devel-opment. This is facilitated by the close coopera-tion among the Japanese Government, financialinstitutions, and the highly integrated advancedmaterials companies.


PROJECTIONS BASED ON CONTINUATION OF THE STATUS QUO

Given that the Federal Government plays suchan important role in advanced materials devel-opment, it is evident that government policychoices will have a significant effect on the com-petitiveness of U.S. advanced materials industries.Before discussing policy issues and options,though, it is useful to consider scenarios that canbe projected based on continuation of currenttrends.

Because U.S. military markets will expand fasterthan commercial markets in the near term, themilitary role in determining the developmentagenda for advanced materials is likely tobroaden. As explained above, military invest-ments in advanced materials could be an assetto U.S. firms; however, they could also tend toskew advanced materials activities in the direc-tion of high-performance, high-cost materials in-appropriate for commercial applications.

Meanwhile, the reluctance of U.S. commercialend users to commit to advanced materials sug-gests that foreign firms will have an advantagein exploiting the growing global markets. Almostcertainly, a successful product using an advancedmaterial produced abroad would stimulate aflurry of R&D activity among U.S. companies.However, given the lack of experience in theUnited States with low-cost, high-volume man-ufacturing technologies for advanced materials,U.S. companies would be faced with a formida-ble challenge in trying to catch up.

The high cost of R&D, scale-up, and produc-tion of advanced materials, together with thepoor near-term commercial prospects, will drivemore and more U.S. companies to pool resourcesand spread risks through a variety of joint ven-tures, consortia, and research centers. Currently,many such collaborative programs are springingup across the country. These programs will pro-vide an excellent environment for generic re-search and the training of students. However,they will not necessarily lead to more aggressivecommercialization of advanced materials by par-ticipating companies (see ch. 10).

Worldwide, advanced materials industries willcontinue to become more multinational in char-acter through acquisitions, joint ventures, andlicensing agreements. Technology will flow rap-idly between firms and across national borders.For U.S. companies, critical advances will con-tinue to come from abroad, and the flow of ma-terials technology into the United States will beas important as that flowing out. U.S. efforts toregulate these flows for national security reasonswill meet increasing resistance from multinationalcompanies intent on achieving the lowest pro-duction costs and free access to markets.

These projections suggest there is reason todoubt that the United States will be a worldleader in advanced materials manufacturing inthe 1990s and beyond. The full-scale commer-cialization of these materials is presently blockedbecause they do not meet the cost and perform-ance requirements of potential end users.

PROPOSED POLICY OBJECTIVES AND OPTIONSOTA believes there are four general govern-

ment policy objectives which could help toreduce the barriers to effective commercializa-tion of advanced materials in the United States.

1. Encourage long-term capital investment inadvanced materials by potential end users.

2. Facilitate govern merit/university/industrycollaboration in R&D for low-cost materialsfabrication processes.

3. Facilitate more effective commercial exploi-tation of military R&D investments wherepossible.

4. Build a strong advanced materials technol-ogy infrastructure.

The following discussion of policy options isframed by these four general objectives. Optionsrange from those with a broad scope, affectingmany technologies, to those specifically affect-


ing advanced materials. These options are notmutually exclusive, and most could be im-plemented without inconsistency.

Following the discussion of policy options is asection on alternative approaches to setting theFederal Government goals and priorities withregard to advanced materials.

Encourage Long-Term CapitalInvestment by Advanced Materials

End Users

Greater investment in advanced materials bypotential end users would generate more mar-ket pull on these technologies in the UnitedStates. The shortfall of long-term investment inadvanced materials by potential end-user com-panies reflects a more widespread shortfall foundin many U.S. industries. Such shortfalls have beenattributed to a variety of generic barriers to thecommercialization of emerging technologies, assummarized in table 12-1. (Many of these bar-riers were also identified as critical by materialsindustry representatives contacted by OTA asdescribed in ch. 8.)

Table 12-1.—Commonly Cited Generic Barriersto Commercialization of Emerging Technologies

in the United States

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

High costs of capital funds in the United States relativeto foreign competitorsLack of tax incentives for U.S. companies relative to for-eign competitors to deploy emerging technologies (includ-ing the stability of tax regulations)Poor integration of manufacturing, design, and R&DfunctionsInadequate laws, regulations, and enforcement protectingintellectual property rights in the United States or overseasComplacency of US. manufacturers and dependence onthe domestic marketRestrictive trade policies in foreign marketsTime-consuming Federal and State regulations on cor-porate activities intended to protect the public health andsafety (e.g., building codes, environmental laws, drug ap-proval regulations, and occupational health regulations)Export controls on advanced technologies and high-tech-nology productsUncertainty caused by product liability and tort lawsAnti-trust restrictions against cooperative ventures for mar-keting or production methods

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, “The Status of Emerging Technologies:An Economic/Technical Assessment to the Year 2000,’” report to theDeputy Secretary of Commerce by the Emerging Technologies Com-mittee, 1987.

The climate for long-term industry investmentis strongly affected by Federal policies and regu-lations, including tax policy, intellectual propertylaw, tort law, and environmental regulations.Public debate regarding the relationships be-tween these Federal policies and regulations andU.S. industrial competitiveness has given rise toa voluminous literature. Suggested policy changesinclude: providing tax incentives for long-termcapital investments; reducing taxation on per-sonal savings and corporate retained earnings tomake more investment capital available and thusreduce its cost; revising banking law to encouragefinancial institutions to make patient capital avail-able; and enacting comprehensive tort law reformaimed at making product liability costs propor-tional to proven negligence.2

Such policy changes affect the general climatefor innovation, and have been extensively dis-cussed elsewhere.3 They have implications far be-yond advanced materials technologies, and ananalysis of their effects is beyond the scope ofthis assessment. Although it is conceivable thatsuch broad policy instruments could be narrowedto focus on advanced materials technologies spe-cifically, there would appear to be little justifica-tion for singling out advanced materials—as op-posed to, say, microelectronics, computers, orbiotechnology–for special consideration. Thistheme is developed further at the conclusion ofthis chapter.

FacilitateGovernment/University/Industry

Collaboration in R&D for Low-CostMaterials Manufacturing Processes

There is evidence that existing university/indus-try and Federal laboratory/industry joint R&Dcenters in advanced materials do not address theproblem of commercialization of research resultsvery effectively (see ch. 10). Rather, these pro-grams tend to be seen by industry as promotingthe infrastructure of the technology; i.e., provid-

2Techno/ogy and the American Economic Transition, an uPcom-

ing OTA report.3See, for instance, the report of the President’s Commission on

Industrial Competitiveness, “Global Competition, the New Real-ity,” January 1985.

Ch. 12–Policy Issues and Options “ 297

ing access to new ideas and trained students.Although such contributions are essential andshould be encouraged, it appears that a signifi-cant gap still remains between the point at whichcurrent collaborative materials R&D leaves offand the point at which industry is prepared tomake significant investments to bring this R&Dto commercial fruition.

There are two major policy options whichcould help to bridge this gap.

Option 1: Establish a limited number of col-laborative centers dedicated to advanced ma-terials manufacturing technology.

Given the nature of the risks posed by manu-facturing with advanced materials–very highscale-up and production costs in an uncertainmarket environment—it may be necessary for thegovernment to share these costs by supportingcollaborative centers designed to develop morecost-effective manufacturing methods.4 The costsharing could be accomplished directly throughFederal matching funds, or indirectly through taxcredits designed to stimulate cooperative re-search. These centers would not necessarily re-quire the building of new facilities; rather, theycould be based at existing centers of excellence.

There are several characteristics that such col-laborative manufacturing centers should have ifthey are to be successful in promoting technol-ogy utilization (see ch. 10). First, the centersshould incorporate the commercialization per-spective into the fabric of their structure from thebeginning. They should be located in settings thatare very conducive to the intermingling of indus-try and research staff concerns. Industry shouldbe directly involved in the planning, funding, andadministration. The centers should feature direct,bench-level collaboration between visiting indus-trial scientists and the facility research staff. Indus-try managers, production engineers, and marketingpersonnel should have temporary assignments towork with the center staff to develop the manu-facturing infrastructure needed. The centersshould have ample opportunities for proprietary

4A similar suggestion appears in the Report of the Research Brief-ing Panel on Ceramics and Ceramic Composites (Washington, DC:National Academy Press, 1985).

projects to be carried out for individual industryclients in parallel with the broader program ofwidely disseminated nonproprietary projects.Finally, the industry participants should commitsufficient resources to their own internal R&D ef-forts to be able to employ effectively the researchoutput of the centers.

Depending on the agenda of an industry con-sortium aimed at developing manufacturing tech-nology for advanced materials, there could bean antitrust conflict with the Clayton Act, Section7 (15 U.S.C. 18). This section prohibits acquisi-tions and joint ventures where the effect is tolessen competition between firms. In the NationalCooperative Research Act of 1984 (Public Law98-462), the Clayton Act was amended to per-mit joint R&D ventures at a basic level.

Further legislation may be required to permitcooperative manufacturing development wheresuch cooperation clearly enhances the competi-tiveness of U.S. industry in the global market-place. Antitrust reform proposals along these linesare a prominent feature of the President’s Com-petitiveness Initiative released in January 1987.Because similar consortia are now being plannedin other industries, notably microelectronics, itappears unlikely that structural ceramics consor-tia would be the first to test this legal ground.

Option 2: Encourage large companies to workwith small advanced materials firms that havemanufacturing expertise but lack the capitalto explore its commercial potential.

Ultimately, large integrated companies arelikely to be more competitive in high volumemarkets for advanced materials than smalI com-panies (see ch. 9). However, the current smallmarkets for advanced materials technologies havespawned many small materials companies thatsupply materials for specialty applications, espe-cially military applications.

Like universities and Federal laboratories, thesesmall companies represent a technology resourcethat could make large materials suppliers and endusers more competitive in the future. Whetherthrough acquisitions, joint ventures or other fi-nancial arrangements, large companies could userelationships with small ones to acquire access


to technologies that have commercial promise,but that are not cost-effective for large compa-nies to develop in-houses Furthermore, from anational perspective, the commercialization goalmay receive greater emphasis in collaborationsbetween large and small companies than in thoseinvolving industry and academia or industry andFederal laboratories.

In spite of these possible benefits, though, thereis evidence to suggest that this small companyresource is not receiving Federal support com-mensurate with its productive potential.

Executives of small materials companies con-tacted by OTA expressed concern that the shareof Federal sources of capital going to small busi-nesses has been declining. As shown in table 12-2, the share of Federal R&D contracts awardedto small businesses has declined since 1979, al-though the implementation of the Small BusinessInnovation Research (SBIR) program, which be-gan in 1983, has helped to reverse this trend.6

One reason for this decline is a trend in govern-ment procurement toward aggregating contractsinto larger packages awarded to large companiesthat supply the overall system. Small firms in-volved in the government procurement processthus depend on subcontracts from the systemssuppliers, rather than direct support for technol-ogy development.

A large number of small advanced materialscompanies have participated in the SBIR pro-gram. Those contacted by OTA have been uni-formly enthusiastic about their experiences.Sources familiar with the SBIR program reportthat since 1982, 60 percent of Phase I awards

sit should be noted that these small companies are a resource

for large foreign companies as well as large U.S. companies, andtheir acquisition by foreign companies can bean important mech-anism for transferring U.S. technology abroad.

bEnacted in 1982 (Small Business Innovation Development Act,

Public Law 97-21 9) and phased in over 5 years, the SBIR programrequires that Federal agencies with extramural R&D budgets in ex-cess of $100 million set aside 1.25 percent of those budgets forawards to small businesses. The SBIR program is intended to meetthe R&D needs of the funding agency while at the same time help-ing the small companies to explore avenues to commercializationof that research. It fills a unique need in the innovation processbecause it provides funding for the translation of a technical con-cept into a prototype; once the innovation has reached the proto-type stage, it is expected that the small company involved will ob-tain additional funding from private or non-SBIR Federal sources.

each year have gone to firms that had no previ-ous contact with the program.7 This implies a ge-ometric increase in the number of firms that haveparticipated in the program.

Federal program managers report that they re-ceive many more high-quality proposals than canbe funded. Furthermore, they also state that theyare impressed with the quality and cost-effective-ness of the research performed. This suggests thatthe SBIR program could be expanded withoutcompromising the quality of the research or ex-hausting the supply of innovative small com-panics.8

Expanding the SBIR program is only one op-tion for increasing the amount of capital madeavailable for small advanced materials compa-nies. Other alternatives could include specificprovisions for reducing the cost of their partici-pation in federally funded collaborative R&Dcenters, as well as encouraging prime contrac-tors in large Federal projects involving advancedmaterials to subcontract more extensively to smallcompanies.

Facilitate More Effective CommercialExploitation of Military R&DInvestments Where Possible

In the United States, the military has generallybeen the driving force behind the developmentof various kinds of composites, including thosehaving polymer, metal, ceramic, and carbon ma-trices. Because of the strategic importance ofsome advanced materials, restrictions are placedon the dissemination of these materials and in-formation relating to them. These restrictions tendto limit the international business opportunitiesof U.S.-based advanced materials companies,particularly as the advanced materials capabilitiesof foreign countries reach parity with those of theUnited States. (See ch. 11 for a discussion of theadvantages and disadvantages of defense fund-

7Ann Eskeson, President, Innovation Development Institute, per-sonal communication, November 1987.

8A proposal to increase the small business set-aside from 1.25percent to 2.5 percent is discussed in “Innovation in Small Firms, ”Small Business Administration Issue Alert, July 1986. Any such ex-pansion, however, is likely to be opposed by university groups andagencies whose primary mission is to fund university research.

Ch. 12—Policy Issues and Options . 299

Table 12-2.—Share of Federal R&D Contracts Going to Small Business, 1979-86a

Fiscal year

Category 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983b 1984 1985 1986

Total contracts ($millions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .12,889 14,195 16,741 20,025 22,116 24,452 25,749 25,680Small business ($millions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846 958 987 955 1,054 1,198 1,526 1,648Small business share (percent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 6.7 5.9 4.8 4.8 4.9 5.9 6.4Small business share without SBIR funds

(percent). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – – – – 4.6 4.6 5.4 5.5aFederal R&D outlays are divided roughly as follows: contracts 50%; grants 25%; and intramural 25%. Small business is defined as companies with fewer than 500

employees.bYear that the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program was phased in.

SOURCE: William K. Scheirer, Small Business Administration.

ing and procurement policies for advanced ma-terials suppliers.)

As commercial applications grow and DoD be-comes less of a driver and more of a consumerof advanced materials technology, the viabilityof the domestic industry will become the para-mount consideration, from both an economicand a military point of view. To strengthen thedomestic advanced materials manufacturingbase, it will become more and more importantto strike a balance between the competing goalsof military and commercial users of ceramics andcomposites. If the history of the U.S. microelec-tronics industry is any guide, transfer of commer-cially developed materials and processes to themilitary will eventually become more importantthan military-to-commercial transfer.

The principal policy issues likely to be involvedin developing a military/commercial balance arethose associated with export controls, informa-tion controls, military research in manufacturingtechnologies, procurement practices, and offsets.

Export Controls

Early in 1987, the Department of Commerceproposed several changes in the administrationof export controls intended to alleviate their im-pact on U.S. high technology trade.9 Amongthese are proposals to remove from the controllists those technologies that have become avail-able from many foreign sources, and to reducethe review period for export license applications.These changes could be helpful, but some fur-ther steps should be considered.

9“Export Controls: Advancing Our National Security and Eco-nomic Vitality, ” Business America, Mar. 2, 1987.

Option 1: Increase representation by nonmili-tary materials industries (including end users)in policy planning for export controls.

Currently, policymaking decisions about exportcontrols tend to reflect the interests of the defensecommunity—both government personnel and de-fense contractors. To achieve a more balancedpolicy, it would help to have nondefense indus-try managers participate in the process.

The Department of Commerce has alreadytaken a step in this direction, with the charter-ing of the Materials Technical Advisory Commit-tee in April 1986. The purpose of the committeeis to provide an industry perspective for policy-makers in the materials field. When the commit-tee has its full complement of members, thegroup could provide timely advice to the Depart-ment of Commerce on export control policies re-lating to advanced materials.

Option 2: Eliminate or loosen reexport controls.

The United States is the only country that im-poses controls on the reexport by other countriesof U.S.-made dual-use products (i. e., productsthat have both military and commercial uses), orsystems that contain U.S.-made parts and com-ponents. Many countries view U.S. reexport con-trols as unwarranted interference in their politi-cal and commercial affairs, and this has led toa process of “de-Americanization,” in which for-

eign companies avoid the use of U.S.-made ma-terials and components in their systems.10

IOBa/anC;ng the /Vat;ona/ Interest: U.S. National %?CUrltY ExPoflControls and Global Economic Competition (Washington DC: Na-tional Academy Press, 1987).


The Department of Commerce has recently re-vised the parts and components regulations forreexports from member countries of the Coordi-nating Committee for Mukilateral Export Controls(CoCom), so that, for most destinations, a U.S.reexport license is needed only if U.S.-made partsand components are valued in excess of 25 per-cent (up from 10 percent) of the system value.This relaxation could encourage foreign compa-nies to use more U.S.-made parts, but its effectsshould be assessed after a suitable period to seeif it goes far enough. For shipment to proscribedcountries (e.g., Eastern bloc countries), a licenseis required if U.S.-made parts exceed 10 percentof the system value or $10,000.

No revisions have been made in the regulationsconcerning reexports of stand-alone items, anda reexport license must be obtained for quanti-ties of these items above certain threshold values.For instance, a threshold of zero applies to ad-vanced ceramics, so that licenses are required forreexports of all advanced ceramic items. Lowthreshold values are used to control reexport ofrelatively inexpensive items that have significantmilitary value, such as ceramic rocket nose cones.One option for encouraging foreign companiesto make greater use of U.S.-made advanced ma-terials and components would be to raise thesethreshold values in a product-specific way withinthe existing regulations.

An alternative method would be to eliminatethe U.S. reexport restrictions entirely, while en-couraging foreign trading partner nations to de-velop and maintain their own export controls forthese products. In light of the recent Toshibascandal, 11 this may be an opportune time to of-fer such an incentive to encourage U.S. tradingpartners to tighten their internal export controls.

Option 3: Streamline and coordinate the vari-ous export control lists.

All of the various lists under which technologiesare controlled should receive careful review forcorrectness and current relevance. In particular,

I IToshiba Machine Co. and a Norwegian firm, Kongsberg VaaPen-

fabrikk Trading Co., are charged with selling sophisticated millingequipment to the Soviet Union. This equipment may enable theSoviet Union to build quieter submarines that are more difficultto detect.

a better mechanism should be found for remov-ing technologies from the lists as necessary. TheDepartment of Commerce could be made re-sponsible for meshing the Commodity ControlList more closely with the CoCom internationallist and for removing outdated or widely avail-able technologies. This review issue is importantfor many technologies, including advanced ma-terials, and should be dealt with on an appropri-ately larger scale. However, for advanced mate-rials in particular, reviewing the various controllists could become the responsibility of the Ma-terials Technical Advisory Committee in the De-partment of Commerce.

One alternative for streamlining the advancedmaterials items on the control lists would be toconcentrate on controlling processing technol-ogies rather than the materials themselves. Manyexperts agree that because of the large numberof processing variables, it is very difficult to “re-verse engineer” a composite material from achunk of the material or structure. To more ef-fectively balance national security and commer-cial trade interests, it may be better to control ex-ports of process information and loosen restrictionson material components and structures.

Option 4: Clarify the export control regulationof metal matrix composite (MMC) productsand information.

At present, the Departments of Commerce andState have overlapping legal and regulatory au-thority to control the export of MMC technology.This arrangement is extremely confusing to U.S.companies, which have experienced long delaysin obtaining approval for export licenses. In somecases, these delays have prevented U.S. MMCsuppliers from establishing business relationshipswith foreign end users for the purpose of explor-ing the potential of MMC materials for commer-cial applications.

It would be less confusing and less time-con-suming for U.S. companies to be able to deal witha single agency regulating the export of these ma-terials and technical data. Congressional actioncould be appropriate to limit the control of thesematerials to one agency. Alternatively, the Na-tional Security Council could arbitrate a discus-sion between Commerce and State for the pur-


pose of housing the control of these materials anddata related to them under one roof.

Information Controls

Technical information about advanced mate-rials is controlled under a complex regime of lawsand regulations administered by the Departmentsof State, Commerce, and Defense. Currently, dis-semination of advanced materials technical in-formation can be controlled via: InternationalTraffic in Arms Regulations of the Department ofState; the dual-use technology restrictions of theDepartment of Commerce; the Defense Author-ization Act of 1984; government contract restric-tions; and the government system of documentclassification.

There are so many ways to restrict informationthat actual implementation of restrictions can ap-pear arbitrary. Under some of these laws, regu-lations and clauses, a company can file for alicense to export, but under others, there is nomechanism to permit export of the information.

Excessive information restrictions can inhibitdomestic technology development and preventtechnology transfer between military and com-mercial applications.

12 Furthermore, they can pre-vent companies from becoming military contrac-tors and also prevent military contractors fromexploiting the full commercial potential of a tech-nology. Minimizing this segregation of technol-ogy should be a goal of both the military andcommercial sectors.

The present system of information controls hasalso led to disruption of scientific meetings andrestriction of some advanced materials confer-ence sessions to U.S.-only participation. SuchU.S.-only sessions, however, can be self-defeatingwhen—as can happen—superior technology is al-ready available abroad. The following are two op-tions that could help alleviate these problems.

Option 1: Simplify and clarify the various infor-mation restriction mechanisms.

One method of reducing the confusion wouldbe to rely more on classification (the main mech-anism for information control as reiterated in the

I zF. Karl Wi Ilenbrock, 1‘ I nformation Controls and Technological IProgress, ” Issues in Science and Technology, fall 1986.

President’s National Security Decision Directiveof 1985) and less on the other more tenuousmechanisms of control (e.g., the Defense Author-ization Act and contract clauses). This wouldhave the advantage of reducing the uncertaintythat now pervades advanced materials confer-ences and professional societies. However, thereis a trade-off between simplicity of controls, onthe one hand, and flexibility on the other. If allinformation that is now controlled became clas-sified, this could have the effect of making suchinformation even less accessible.

Option 2: Make military materials databasesmore available to U.S. companies.

The military has a number of databases on ad-vanced materials projects that could be mademore widely available to U.S. companies. Thisinformation, now available only to defense con-tractors through the Defense Technical informa-tion Center (DTIC), is more comprehensive andup-to-date than that offered by the National Tech-nical Information Service (NTIS). DTIC containsa significant amount of information that is nei-ther classified nor proprietary, but is still limitedto registered users. Such information could beof value to U.S. commercial firms that are notgovernment contractors.

If it is determined that it would be desirable totransfer defense databases selectively to U.S.companies, a workable definition of a U.S. com-pany must be found. As advanced materials com-panies take on an increasingly international char-acter (see ch. 9), such distinctions are becomingmoot. Another alternative would be to transfermore of the DTIC databases to NTIS. However,this would make the information available to U.S.and non-U.S. companies alike.

Military Research inManufacturing Technologies

Although military applications for advancedmaterials can generally tolerate higher costs formaterials and processes than commercial appli-cations, both could benefit greatly from researchon low-cost manufacturing methods. The desireto reduce procurement costs led DoD to imple-ment its Manufacturing Technologies (ManTech)program, which includes projects devoted to


many different materials and manufacturing tech-nologies.

Total ManTech funding for the three servicesplus the Defense Logistics Agency is $124 mil-lion for fiscal year 1987, with $165 million re-quested for fiscal year 1988. However, it is diffi-cult to ascertain what proportion of these fundscan be considered materials-related in that indi-vidual projects can be considered either as struc-tures or materials processing efforts.

Option: Increase support for advanced materi-als manufacturing research through the Man-Tech program.

Low-cost manufacturing technologies representa convergence of interests between DoD and thecommercial sector that could hasten the commer-cial utilization of advanced materials technologiesdeveloped for the military. One alternative couldbe to augment the budget for those ManTechprojects aimed at decreasing production costsand increasing reproducibility and reliability ofadvanced materials structures.

Procurement Practices

DoD constitutes a special market with uniquematerials requirements. However, like other cus-tomers for advanced materials, DoD strives tohave the widest variety of materials available atthe lowest possible cost. Therefore, it employsregulatory means to simulate the conditions ofcommercial markets. This makes the participa-tion by materials suppliers extremely dependenton defense regulations and policies, rather thanon conventional economic criteria. Through itspolicies on dual sourcing, materials qualification,and domestic sourcing of advanced materials,DoD has a profound influence on the cost andavailability of a variety of high-performance ma-terials and technologies.

Option: Provide a clear plan for implementingdomestic sourcing regulations for advancedmaterials.

Carbon fibers used in advanced compositesprovide a useful example of the need for a clearplan for implementing domestic sourcing policies.Most high-performance carbon fiber is derivedfrom an organic precursor material called poly-

acrylonitrile (PAN). Although there are manycompanies in the United States that are capableof manufacturing carbon fiber from PAN, 100 per-cent of PAN precursor for composites qualifiedfor U.S. military use is imported. At present,Amoco is the only domestic producer of PANprecursor; however, Amoco’s carbon fibers arestill undergoing qualification testing.

In the Defense Appropriations Act of 1987(Public Law 100-202) Congress specified that 50percent of all defense requirements for PAN-based carbon fiber be produced domestically by1992.13 Congress has required that DoD providea program plan to fulfill this PAN requirement;the plan is due to be presented in June 1988.14

A prior DoD directive on domestic sourcing ofPAN requires two or more domestic suppliers.Such suppliers would not have to be U.S.-ownedas long as their plants are located in the UnitedStates.

Domestic suppliers of carbon fiber made fromimported PAN welcome this legislation, but theyare uncertain about how it will be implemented,and about which weapon systems would be in-volved.

To make intelligent investment decisions, U.S.carbon fiber suppliers would like DoD to providea comprehensive plan for implementing the pro-posed directive. The greater the percentage ofdomestic PAN precursor used in military systems,the more attractive it will be to invest in the open-ing of a pIant; the proposed requirement of 50percent by 1992 is considered very appealing byindustry.

To be effective, the program plan must specifywhich weapons systems will be required to usedomestically produced PAN and in what quan-tities. In addition, industry would like assurancesthat domestically produced PAN will be procuredeven if foreign-produced PAN is initially less ex-pensive. It would also be necessary for DoD toguarantee to purchase minimum quantities of thefiber in order for industry to establish new pro-duction facilities.

13 Congresslona/ Record, Dec. 12, 1987, vol. 133, No. 205, Part

Ill, pp. HI 2546-7.14 Ken Foster, U.S. Department of Defense, personal communi-

cation, May 7, 1987.


Offsets

Offsets are a foreign policy-related marketingdevice that can be detrimental to the U.S. ad-vanced materials technology base. Technologyoffsets are commonly required by foreign custom-ers before they will consider bids from U.S. orother systems suppliers. In recent years, little at-tention has been paid to the effects of offsets.

It appears that the best way to prevent the dis-tribution of U.S. advanced materials technologythrough offsets is to prevent foreign nations fromrequiring offsets from U.S. companies. Perhapsthis is best addressed in the context of trade ne-gotiations on specific systems, such as militaryand commercial aircraft. However, offsets areonly a small part of such trade negotiations, andforeign policy goals may preempt this approach.This issue is of increasing importance to materi-als suppliers as foreign nations become more andmore interested in acquiring U.S. technology andcompeting in U.S. markets.

option: Initiate a thorough study of the effectsof offsets on the competitiveness of U.S. ad-vanced materials industries.

Build a Strong Advanced MaterialsTechnology Infrastructure

For U.S. advanced materials suppliers and usersto rapidly exploit materials technology develop-ments over the long term, whether these devel-opments occur within the United States orabroad, a strong U.S. technology infrastructuremust be built to support the cost-effective use ofthe new materials. Such an infrastructure wouldinclude the availability of basic scientific knowl-edge, technical data to support design and man-ufacture, and an adequate supply of trained per-sonnel. Infrastructure investments are generallyconsidered the responsibility of the Federal Gov-ernment, since they are a public good, i.e., theycannot be appropriated for an individual com-pany’s benefit. There are several policy optionsto be considered as a means of supporting thedevelopment of a strong technology infrastructure.

Option 1: Increase the funding for R&D in ad-vanced materials and their manufacturing

processes to reduce costs and increase relia-bility and performance.

Although ceramics, polymer matrix compos-ites, and metal matrix composites technologiesare at different stages of maturity and have differ-ent applications, there are four R&D prioritiescommon to all three technologies:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Manufacturing science research is neededto support the development of cost-effectivemanufacturing processes.The relationships between structure, me-chanical properties, and failure mechanismsmust be understood to take advantage of theanisotropic properties of advanced materials.The behavior of advanced materials in se-vere environments must be determined tofacilitate reliable design and life prediction.The interracial region between matrix andreinforcement in composites, which has acritical influence on composite behavior,must be properly understood.

These priorities are widely appreciated, andOTA finds that current agency R&D programs aregenerally consistent with them. However, greaterfunding in these priority areas could acceleratecommercial use of advanced materials. Alterna-tively, if overall funding is reduced, preservationof funding in these areas should be a priority.

Option 2: Develop a comprehensive account ofcollaborative R&D efforts in advanced mate-rials at the Federal, regional, and State levels,including program goals and funding.

Collaborative R&D programs promise to spreadthe risks of industry investments in advanced ma-terials. Numerous centers of excellence focusingon various aspects of advanced materials tech-nologies have been initiated in the past severalyears, and little attention has been paid to waste-ful overlap or the possibility of exhausting com-mon sources of funding.

The ad hoc process by which collaborativecenters are currently established has both advan-tages and disadvantages. The principal advantageis that many different competing organizationalmodels can be explored, leading to a Darwinian“survival of the fittest. ” This approach also fostersmore diverse solutions to technological problems,

—


as well as providing broader educational oppor-tunities for students.

One of the disadvantages is that the resultingdispersion of talent and resources could preventa coalescing of all the factors necessary to createa first class advanced materials industry.15 Thisespecially appears to be a problem with ad-vanced materials, in which design, processing,and testing are so closely integrated. The best so-lution may be a mix of small, dispersed centerswith a limited number of larger, integratedcenters in which design, processing, and evalu-ation are undertaken under one roof.

A comprehensive account of collaborative R&Defforts in advanced materials would be a neces-sary first step in drawing lessons from experiencewith various collaborative models, and in mini-mizing wasteful duplication of effort. It would notbe appropriate for the Federal Government to at-tempt to discourage States from establishing col-laborative centers of excellence in any technol-ogy. However, to the extent that Federal fundingis sought by these centers, the government coulduse its leverage to encourage them to work to-gether as much as possible. New Federal centersshould only be undertaken after taking into ac-count the existing context of State and regionalcenters.

The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Actof 1987 (H. R. 3) contains a provision to createa central clearinghouse within the Departmentof Commerce’s Office of Productivity, Technol-ogy, and Innovation to keep track of State andregional competitiveness initiatives, including col-laborative centers. Such a clearinghouse couldbe the vehicle for gathering information on ad-vanced materials centers. Alternatively, an orga-nization such as the National Critical MaterialsCouncil could undertake to gather this infor-mation.

Option 3: Gather comprehensive informationon current activities in government-fundedadvanced materials R&D.

One persistent need identified by many indus-try sources is information on the many different

government activities in advanced materials. Ingeneral, this information exists but is rarely in aform readily accessible to researchers. A databasecould be assembled containing a listing of proj-ects by subject and sponsoring agency, each en-try accompanied by the name of a contact, an-nual budget, milestones achieved, bibliographyof project reports, and technology transfer activ-ities. Some of the specific benefits of such a data-base would include:

●

●

●

A point of access for those interested inperusing recent reports or those seeking in-formation on current programs in an area ofinterest.A source for tracing trends in funding andpriorities for materials science and engineer-ing over time.A source for assessing the effectiveness ofgovernment-to-industry technology transferefforts in materials.

The preparation of such a database would notbe difficult, as most of the information exists invarious forms in the funding agencies.16 Such aproject would be consistent with the mandate ofthe National Critical Materials Council. The Coun-cil could work with other government groupssuch as the Center for the Utilization of FederalTechnologies at the National Technical informa-tion Service (NTIS), and it could also oversee theannual updating of the database by tapping pro-gram managers in the various Federal agenciesinvolved.

Option 4: Establish a mechanism for gatheringbusiness performance statistics for advancedmaterials industries.

It is very difficult to obtain accurate, up-to-datebusiness statistics on advanced materials produc-tion, imports, and exports. The Standard indus-trial Classification categories now in use do notdistinguish these advanced materials from con-ventional materials. For instance, advanced ce-ramics are aggregated together with ceramictableware and sanitary ware. This situation con-trasts sharply with that in Japan, where eachmonth the Ministry of International Trade and ln-

‘5R.M. Latanision, “Developments in Advanced Materials in theIndustrialized Countries, ” proceedings of the Federation of Mate-rials Societies’ Ninth Biennial Conference on National Materials Pol-icy, Fredericksburg, VA, August 1986. p. 21.

lbsuch a database collected on government funding of structural

ceramics in 1985 was used in table 3-11 to compare the recom-mended R&D priorities for structural ceramics with actual agencyspending.


dustry publishes detailed statistics on the produc-tion and export of advanced ceramics broken outby product type. Such statistics are extremely use-ful in understanding production trends and inassessing the competitive status of the U.S. ad-vanced materials industries.

Proposals to revise SIC codes to take accountof advanced ceramics industries have been un-der study since 1985 by the United States Ad-vanced Ceramics Association. 17 However, this is-sue has not received a high priority within theindustry, and no action is currently contemplated,This may turn out to be a short-sighted decision,As international trade in advanced materials andcomponents grows, these statistics could also pro-vide the documentation required to prove dam-age to domestic ceramics industries from unfairtrading practices abroad.18

Option 5: Increase funding for person-to-personefforts to gather and disseminate data oninternational developments in advanced ma-terials.

The cultural and scientific parochialism ofAmericans has been widely recognized, andthere have been many calls for programs togather technical data from abroad and to trans-late foreign technical publications into English.19

As several countries approach and exceed U.S.capabilities in advanced materials technologies,it becomes imperative for U.S. companies to haveaccess to such information. Particularly acute isthe lack of qualified translators who also have atechnical background. The establishment of first-class technology information networks worldwideis one of the strengths of Japan, a principal eco-nomic competitor of the United States.

The Federal Government currently has severalscattered programs to address this problem. In1986, Congress passed the Japanese Technical

17A 51 ml Iar option is proposed i n “A Competitive Assessment ofthe U.S. Advanced Ceramics Industry, ” NTIS PB84-1 62288, De-partment of Commerce, March 1984.

lsMichae{ T. Kel\ey, Department of Commerce, personal com-

munication, August 1987.lgFor a review see “Monitoring Foreign Science and Technology

for Enhanced International Competitiveness: Defining U.S. Needs, ”the proceedings of a workshop conducted by the Office of NavalResearch and the National Science Foundation, Washington, DC,October 1986.

Literature Act (public Law 99-382), which real-located $1 million within the Department ofCommerce for assessing and monitoring Japanesetechnical publications. Other Federal programsinclude the National Science Foundation’s (NSF)JTECH reports, which provide an assessment ofJapanese efforts in various technical areas.20

The Federal Government’s efforts to gathertechnical data are hampered by several factors.One is that the demand for such information isnot very well defined. Not everyone has a de-sire or need for the same data, making it difficultto select a commonly agreed upon subset of avail-able data for translation. Critics of translation pro-grams argue that the most useful information isobtained through informal discussions of ongo-ing work, rather than through publications, whichmay contain data more than a year old. Anotherfactor is that large companies tend to rely on theirown data-gathering mechanisms, which smallercompanies cannot afford. I n addition, many pri-vate firms offer data-gathering and translationservices in foreign countries for sale to other par-ties.21 Federal Government translation programsthus risk competing with the private sector.

A policy alternative to massive governmenttranslation of foreign technical articles would beto recognize the importance of person-to-personcontact in technology exchange. Congress couldmandate that increased funding be provided forexchange programs, travel to international sci-entific meetings by U.S. scientists, language train-ing for U.S. science graduate students, and sab-baticals abroad for U.S. technical personnel. Suchfunding is essential for U.S. visitors to Japan, forinstance, where the national laboratories do notprovide funds to cover the salaries of visiting sci-entists, and where postdoctoral fellowships arenot available. In addition, U.S. beneficiaries ofthese programs should be encouraged to pub-lish accounts of their experiences, and to dissem-inate this information to U.S. industry.

Zosee, for instance, Science Applications International Corp.,

“JTECH Panel Report on Advanced Materials in Japan,” JTECH-TAR-8502, a contractor study prepared for the National ScienceFoundation, May 1986.

21 0ne such firm is the Japan TechnicaI Information Service of

University Microfilms International, located in Ann Arbor, MI.


Option 6: Increase support for the developmentof standards for advanced materials.

Standardization, particularly the need for stand-ard test methods, has long been identified as animportant priority for advanced materials (see ch.5). The problems inherent in setting standards inrapidly moving technologies are clear. Standardsdevelopment is a consensus process that takesyears, and it is all the slower with advanced ma-terials because of their complex and unfamiliarbehavior. However, tackling the standards prob-lem now rather than later could not only speedthe development of the technologies, but also en-hance the future competitiveness of U.S. ad-vanced materials companies.

There are already international organizationsthat are pursuing advanced materials standards.Among these are the Versailles Project on Ad-vanced Materials and Standards (VAMAS), withprojects in 13 materials areas, and the interna-tional Energy Agency which is focusing on char-acterization of ceramic powders and materials.Currently, U.S. participation in these internationalstandards-related activities tends to be part-time,with funds set aside from other budgets. Provi-sion of separate funds for VAMAS liaison and in-ternational travel for the U.S. officials involvedcould make U.S. representation more effective.

Although U.S. participation in these interna-tional efforts is likely to be important, it will alsobe essential to develop domestic standards foradvanced materials. Standards implicitly reflectthe domestic capabilities of the originators, in-cluding specialized equipment and expertise.Having viable domestic standards would thus notonly help U.S. industry to capitalize on domes-tic practices and capabilities but would also serveas a basis for negotiations on internationalstandards.

Among the United States’ foreign competitors,Japan appears to be making the largest overalleffort in ceramics standards. Japan is activelyseeking to establish international standards, andwould prefer that those international standards

resemble Japan’s domestic standards as closelyas possible—just as U.S. ceramics companieswould prefer that those standards be close to U.S.domestic standards.

The principal disadvantage stemming from U.S.adoption of Japanese standards would be the lossof time involved with compliance. Moreover,Japan’s quality control standards already allowthe Japanese to produce ceramics at a lower cost.The rejection rate for final ceramic products, amajor factor determining overall productioncosts, is significantly lower in Japan than in theUnited States.22

Option 7: Increase the pool of trained materi-als scientists and engineers by providing in-creased funding for multidisciplinary univer-sity programs in advanced structural materialsand by providing retraining opportunities fortechnical personnel in the field.

To take advantage of the opportunities pre-sented by advanced materials, the United Statesmust maintain a viable population of trained ma-terials scientists and engineers. Industrial sourcescontacted by OTA were nearly unanimous intheir recommendation that more trained person-nel are needed. Because materials science andengineering cut across many traditional academicdisciplines, it will be essential to train studentsin multidisciplinary programs. This training shouldprepare them to take a systems approach in de-signing and manufacturing with advanced mate-rials (see ch. 5).

Another important source of manpower is likelyto result from the retraining in the field ofdesigners and manufacturing engineers who areunfamiliar with the new materials. Small busi-nesses, professional societies, universities, andFederal laboratories could all play a role in pro-viding such retraining services.

22steve H~u, Chief, ceramics Division, National Bureau of Stand.ards, personal communication, November 1987.


TWO VIEWS OF ADVANCED MATERIALS POLICIESCongress and the Reagan Administration have

adopted conflicting views of policymaking withrespect to advanced materials. In the congres-sional view, the Federal Government should for-mulate a high-level national plan for advancedmaterials research, development, and technol-ogy, whereas in the Administration’s view, suchgoals and priorities should be established in a de-centralized fashion by the principal funding agen-cies according to their various missions.

As indicated in table 12-3, Congress has longbeen concerned with materials issues, datingback to the Strategic War Materials Act of 1939(53 Stat. 811). Through the 1950s, congressionallegislation continued to focus on ensuring accessto reliable supplies of strategic materials in timeof national emergency. The 1970s saw congres-sional interest broaden to include the economicand environmental implications of the entire ma-terials cycle, from mining to disposal. In Title IIof the Resource Recovery Act of 1970 (Public Law91-512), Congress called upon the executivebranch to develop a comprehensive national ma-terials policy relating to materials supply, use, re-covery, and disposal. The Act authorized the Na-tional Commission on Materials Policy to identifynational materials requirements and priorities, en-hance coordination among Federal agencies’ ma-terials activities, and assign responsibilities for theimplementation of national materials policy.

The National Materials and Minerals Policy, Re-search, and Development Act of 1980 echoedthese themes, noting that the United States lacksa coherent national materials and minerals pol-icy. It called on the President to coordinate Fed-eral efforts to identify and assess materials needsfor commerce, the economy, and national secu-rity. It also mandated that the President submitto Congress a program plan outlining mechanismsfor responding to these needs.

In 1984, Congress explicitly extended theseconcerns to cover advanced materials with thepassage of the National Critical Materials Act

Table 12-3. -U.S. Materials and Minerals Legislation

Strategic War Materials Act–193953 Stat. 811

Established the National Defense Stockpile, intendedto accumulate a 5-year supply of critical materials foruse in wartime or national emergency.

Strategic and Critical Materials Stockpiling Act–194660 Stat. 596

Authorized appropriation of money to acquire metals,oils, rubber, fibers, and other materials needed inwartime.

Defense Production Act–195064 Stat. 798

Authorized President to allocate materials and facilitiesfor defense production, to make and guarantee loansto expand defense production, and to enter into long-term supply contracts for scarce materials.

Resource Recovery Act–1970Public Law 91-512

Established the National Commission on MaterialsPolicy to develop a national materials policy, includingsupply, use, recovery, and disposal of materials.

Mining and Minerals Policy Act–1970Public Law 91-631

Encouraged the Secretary of the Interior to promote in-volvement of private enterprise in economic develop-ment, mining disposal, and reclamation of materials.

Strategic and Critical Stockpiling Revision Act–1979Public Law 96-41

Changed stockpile supply period to 3 years, limited tonational defense needs only; established a stockpiletransaction fund.

National Materials Policy, Research andDevelopment Act– 1980

Public Law 96-479Directed the President to assess material demand, sup-plies, and needs for the economy and national securi-ty, and to submit a program plan to implement thefindings of the assessment.

National Critical Materials Act—1984Public Law 98-373

Established the National Critical Materials Council inthe Executive Office of the President; the Council wasauthorized to oversee the development of policiesrelating to both critical and advanced materials; and todevelop a program for implementing these policies.

SOURCE: Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1988.

(Public Law 98-373, Title II). In this Act, Congressestablished the National Critical Materials Council(NCMC) in the Executive Office of the Presidentand charged it with the responsibility of oversee-ing the formulation of policies relating to both


critical minerals and advanced materials. The in-tent was to establish a policy focus above theagency level to set responsibilities for develop-ing materials policies, and to coordinate the ma-terials R&D programs of the relevant agencies.The NCMC is also directed to establish a nationalFederal program plan for advanced materialsR&D.

Thus, the idea of a national materials policy foradvanced materials is an extension of policy goalsalready articulated for a broad class of materialsconsidered critical for the economy and nationaldefense. Implicit in the congressional view is thatnational goals and priorities for advanced mate-rials can be identified as readily as those for moretraditional critical materials. According to thisview, such goals and priorities should be estab-lished above the agency level, and agency spend-ing on materials programs should be made con-sistent with them.

The United States has long had a decentralizedapproach to advanced materials policy. To a greatextent, the major agencies that engage in mate-rials R&D—DoD, DOE, NASA, and NSF—sponsorprojects according to their distinct missions. Inthe congressional view, the growing technologi-cal capabilities of overseas competitors have un-derscored the urgency of establishing a nation-ally coordinated approach to advanced materialsdevelopment. Advocates of a national materialspolicy point to the apparent capacity of Japan toidentify key technologies for the future and pur-sue their development in a coordinated, govern-ment-industry effort, as has already occurred inJapan in advanced ceramics.

In the Administration’s view, it is not appro-priate for the Federal Government to engage instrategic advanced materials planning. Such plan-ning would constitute putting the government ina position of “picking winners"—which, accord-ing to current Administration thinking, is best leftto the private sector. Because different agencieshave different missions and requirements for ma-terials, the determination of R&D priorities is bestmade at the agency level. Administration criticsof the national materials policy concept maintainthat attempts to make materials policy above theagency level risk the worst aspect of Japanese

policies—the creation of an overbearing bureauc-racy—without achieving the best effect, which isthe commitment and coordination of industry.

Although the materials requirements of differ-ent government agencies are diverse, meetingsamong agency managers of programs involvingadvanced materials are fairly frequent. In fact,several government committees meet to ex-change information about ongoing advanced ma-terials projects. These include the Committee onMaterials (COMAT), within the White House Of-fice of Science and Technology Policy; the inter-agency Materials Group hosted by NSF; and theInteragency Coordinating Committee for Struc-tural Ceramics, which has a rotating chairman-ship. A variety of coordinating groups also existwithin various agencies, such as the Energy andMaterials Coordinating Committee in the DOE.In the Administration’s view, information sharedthrough COMAT and the other interagency ma-terials committees is adequate to avoid excessiveduplication and waste in Federal materials R&Dprograms. Therefore, the congressionally man-dated NCMC is considered redundant.

While the Administration has resisted the con-cept of strategic advanced materials planning forcommercial competitiveness, it has embraced itwith regard to national defense needs. DoD iscurrently preparing a comprehensive policy ini-tiative aimed at preserving the U.S. defense in-dustrial base. This initiative will target for supporta portfolio of technologies, including machinetools, bearings, castings, semiconductors, and ad-vanced composites. In addition, it will addresssuch issues as technological obsolescence, avail-ability of trained personnel, foreign acquisitionsof U.S. companies, international cooperation,and government/university/industry collaboration.23

The congressional and Administration views re-flect different philosophies regarding the appro-priate Federal and private sector roles in tech-nology planning and development. These twoviews are not easily reconciled. However, if some

ZIRobe~ Costello, Department of Defense, in a presentation tothe annual meeting and industry conference of the Suppliers of Ad-vanced Composite Materials Association, Arlington, VA, May 5-8,1987.


of the debate can be clarified, common groundmay emerge. Much of the confusion has to dowith exactly what is meant by a “national mate-rials policy. ”

There are several problems in defining the con-cept of a national materials policy clearly. Oneis that the scope of materials science and tech-nology is extremely broad; even the rubric of “ad-vanced materials” includes structural, electronic,optical, magnetic, and superconducting materi-als technologies. These technologies all havedifferent levels of maturity and applications. Thisdiversity cannot be fully addressed in the con-text of a single policy.

A further problem is that the policy considera-tions appropriate to various types of materialsmay be very different. Whereas policy goals suchas conservation of scarce materials or reliable ac-cess to strategic minerals are easily understoodin the context of conventional materials, it ismuch more difficult to define national goals foradvanced materials. Advanced materials technol-ogies tend to be application-driven, with specificperformance requirements determined by spe-cific applications. For instance, the cost and per-formance requirements of a ceramic tile for thespace shuttle are very different from those of aceramic diesel engine.

Perhaps the first steps toward a national pol-icy would be to identify those materials (e.g., ad-vanced ceramics) that may be regarded as espe-cially promising, and to make the determinationthat a strong domestic fabrication capability is anational goal. The next step could be to identifyand pursue—in consultation with industry—generic cost and performance objectives (strength,reproducibility, etc.) that will be required for thematerial to compete in a large number of prod-ucts and processes. Japan’s Ministry of interna-tional Trade and Industry has used this approachsuccessfully in its collaborative ceramics pro-grams with Japanese industry.24 Alternatively,large demonstration programs could be under-taken that require major development and use

24 National Materials Advisory Board, High Technology Ceramicsin Japan, NMAB-418 (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,1984).

of new materials. However, unless the end prod-uct of such a demonstration program is some-thing that industry wants to commercialize, theprogram may not result in significantly greatercommercial use of the materials.

A national policy approach to advanced ma-terials is likely to have several potential advan-tages. First, it could provide a focus for the ef-forts of individual agencies and collaborativegovernment/industry projects. Second, it couldprovide continuity of funding in a given area asfashionable R&D areas change from year to year.Third, it could provide a rationale for commit-ting large amounts of resources for expensivedemonstration programs. To be successful, sucha national program should be structured withconsultation and participation of academia, theFederal laboratories, and the industry commu-nity that will ultimately implement it.

Such a national approach also has several po-tential disadvantages. First, it may focus on thewrong materials and be too inflexible to capital-ize on new opportunities that arise. Second, itmay tie up resources and manpower in long-termprojects that are better invested elsewhere. Third,because it cannot address the actual cost and per-formance requirements of materials in commer-cial markets, it may fail to produce materials orprocesses that are economically attractive to U.S.industry.

An alternative approach would be to enhancethe present decentralized policy. The decen-tralized approach permits maximum flexibility ofresponse to rapidly changing technologies andapplications, and support for the broadest rangeof new materials technologies. One potential dis-advantage of this approach is that the overall ef-fort could be too fragmentary to bring togetherthe critical mass of talent and resources neces-sary to solve the most difficult problems. This sit-uation is particularly serious when investmentrisks are high, when the resources required aresubstantial, and when it is difficult for privatecompanies to appropriate the full benefits of theirinvestments. For instance, these conditions ap-pear to apply to the development of more cost-effective advanced materials manufacturing tech-nologies.


In such cases, collaborative efforts involvinggovernment, university, and industry participantsare necessary to enhance the decentralized ap-proach. Another critical requirement of this ap-proach is continuous exchange of informationamong government agencies and industries in-volved in advanced materials R&D. This is nec-essary to ensure against excessive duplication ofeffort and to select for the highest quality re-search. Specific policy options for promotingmore effective govern merit/university/industrycollaboration and information exchange are dis-cussed above.

The Critical Materials Act of 1984 invests theresponsibility of developing a national materialsprogram plan in the NCMC. To succeed in thistask, the NCMC will need to establish a more pre-cise definition of the goals that would motivatesuch a national plan, as well as to develop high-Ievel Administration commitment to the conceptof a national materials policy. At present, Con-gress and the Reagan Administration remain farapart in their views of the appropriate scope ofa national materials program plan, and of the roleof the NCMC. pending the resolution of thesedifferences, there are three further functions thatthe

1

NCMC could perform:

Serve as a point of contact to receive andmonitor industry concerns relating to ad-vanced materials. An organization such asthe NCMC could provide forums for inter-action between industry and the FederalGovernment on issues relating to advancedmaterials, particularly those that transcendthe purview of any one agency, These forumscould promote better mutual understandingof government and industry perspectives on

2.

3.

advanced materials development, and theycould eventually lead to the developmentof a consensus on promising future di-rections.Serve as a source of information and refer-ral regarding advanced materials. U.S. ad-vanced materials programs and expertise arewidely dispersed throughout various Federalagencies and laboratories. There is currentlyno definitive source of information thatwould provide an overview of ongoing ef-forts. An organization such as the NCMCcould gather this information from the rele-vant agencies, analyze it, and disseminateit. Examples of the kinds of informationdesired include data on advanced materialsprojects in Federal laboratories, agencybudgets for advanced materials, data on col-laborative materials R&D at both Federal andState levels, industry performance statistics,and foreign materials R&D developments.Serve as a broker for resolving conflicts be-tween military and commercial agency goalsfor advanced materials. Some materialsissues transcend individual agencies andtherefore could be addressed most effec-tively by an organization operating abovethe agency level. For instance, the exportcontrol regime for regulating advanced ma-terials and information relating to them isspread over the Departments of Commerce,State, and Defense, creating a situation thatis very confusing to U.S. industry (see ch.11). An organization such as the NCMCcould work with the National Security Coun-cil to help simplify and clarify the three agen-cies’ responsibilities.

ADVANCED MATERIALS POLICIES IN A BROADER CONTEXTFor U.S. industry, the risks of commercial in- have much to do with future U.S. competitive-

vestments in new structural materials technol- ness in advanced materials technologies.ogies are great in the current business environ-ment; however, the risks of failing to invest could In many respects, the competitive challengesbe much greater. In the near term, there is little facing advanced materials companies are a mi-money to be made from such investments, The crocosm of the challenges facing the U.S. manu-extent to which government and industry can co- facturing sector as a whole. Therefore, advancedoperate in reducing or spreading these risks will materials policy cannot be discussed in a vacuum.


Objectively, there is no more justification for the they clearly must be initiated in the highest coun-NCMC than for a national microelectronics coun- cils of government. Advanced materials policies,cil or a national biotechnology council. More- therefore, can most effectively be addressed asover, policy options such as tax incentives for one facet of a high-level, high-priority policy oflong-term capital investments or revising export strengthening the Nation’s entire industrial andcontrols could serve to stimulate a broad range manufacturing base.of technologies, not just advanced materials.

Such far-reaching policies cannot be initiatedat the agency level or in interagency committees;

,

x CD co,

Appendix A

Contractors and Workshop Participants

CONTRACTORS

P. BeardmoreC.F. JohnsonG.G. StrosbergFord Motor Co.Dearborn, Ml

John BuschFrank FieldMaterials Modeling AssociatesMassachusetts Institute of

TechnologyCambridge, MA

Business Communications Co.Norwalk, CT

Dale E. ChimentiThomas J. MoranJoseph A. MoyzisAir Force Materials LaboratoryWright Patterson AFB, OH

J.D. EvelandCognos AssociatesPalo Alto, CA

Steven R. IzattPA Consulting GroupHightstown, NJ

R. Nathan KatzAlfred L. BrozArmy Materials Technology

LaboratoryWatertown, MA

D.B. MarshallRockwell International Science

CenterThousand Oaks, CA

J.J. MecholskyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityState College, PA

Kenneth L. ReifsniderVirginia Polytechnic Institute and

State UniversityBlacksburg, VA

David W. RichersonCeramatecSalt Lake City, UT

J.E. RitterUniversity of MassachusettsAmherst, MA

Elaine P. RothmanMassachusetts Institute of


Julie M. ShoenungJoel P. ClarkMassachusetts Institute of


Trudy SolomonSolomon AssociatesBethesda, MD

Reginald B. StoopsR.B. Stoops & AssociatesNewport, RI

Strategic Analysis, Inc.Reading, PA

Technology ManagementAssociates

Chevy Chase, MD

Louis Tornatzkyindustrial Technology InstituteAnn Arbor, Ml

Carl ZwebenGeneral Electric Co.Philadelphia, PA

PROJECT WORKSHOPS (Listings of Participants Follow)

Ceramics workshop Participants, Nov. 14-15, 1985

Composites Workshop Participants, Nov. 21-22, 1985

Future Applications of Ceramics Workshop Participants, Dec. 9, 1985

Future Applications of Composites Workshop Participants, Dec. 10, 1985

International Competitiveness Workshop Participants, Dec. 15-16, 1986

Government/University/Industry Collaborations Workshop Participants, Jan. 12, 1987

315


WORKSHOPSCeramics WorkshopNOV. 14915, 1985

Alfred Broz

Participants

R. Nathan KatzArmy Materials Technology Army Materials Technology

Laboratory LaboratoryWatertown, MA Watertown, MA

Joel Clark Jack MecholskyMassachusetts Institute of Pennsylvania State University

Technology State College, PACambridge, MA

David RichersonTom Henson Ceramatec Inc.GTE Products Salt Lake City, UTTowanda, PA

Composites Workshop ParticipantsNov. 21-22, 1985

Joel Clark Joseph MoyzisMassachusetts Institute of Wright-Patterson AFBTechnology Dayton, OHCambridge, MA

Kenneth ReifsniderJohn DeVault Virginia Polytechnic InstituteHercules Aerospace Co. Blacksburg, VASalt Lake City, UT Reginald StoopsThaddeus Helminiak R.B. Stoops & Assoc.

Wright-Patterson AFB Newport, RIDayton, OH

Future Applications of Ceramics Workshop ParticipantsDec. 9, 1985

Charles Berg Albert PaladinoNortheastern University Advanced Technology VenturesBoston, MA Boston, MA

Bill Kuhn Rustum RoyZesto-Therm Pennsylvania State UniversityCincinnati, OH State College, PA

Future Applications of Composites Workshop ParticipantsDec. 10, 1985

Charles Berg Joe LeesNortheastern University DuPont Co.Boston, MA Wilmington, DE

Bob Hammer Paul McMahanBoeing Commercial Aircraft Co. Celanese Research Corp.Kirkland, WA Summit, NJ

John RitterUniversity of MassachusettsAmherst, MA

Elaine RothmanMassachusetts Institute of


Charles L. TuckerUniversity of IllinoisUrbana, IL

Carl ZwebenGeneral Electric Co.Philadelphia, PA

Jim WimmerGarrett Turbine Engine Co.Phoenix, AZ

John RiggsCelanese Research Corp.Summit, NJ

Charles SegalOmniaRaleigh, NC

D. William Lee Darrell H. RenekerArthur D. Little, Inc. National Bureau of StandardsCambridge, MA Gaithersburg, MD

App. A—Contractors and Workshop Participants ● 317

International CompetitivenessDec. 15-16, 1986

Stanley AbkowitzDynamet Technologies, Inc.Burlington, MA

David AllenAllied Signal Corp.Morristown, NJ

E. Reed BellShell Chemical Co.Houston, TX

James N. BurnsHercules, Inc.Magna, UT

David CammerotaU.S. Department of CommerceWashington, DC

John A. CoppolaStandard Oil Engineered

Materials Co.Niagara Falls, NY

Samuel J. DastinGrumman Aircraft SystemsBethpage, NY

Joseph F. DolowyDWA Composite Specialities,

Inc.Chatsworth, CA

Workshop Participants

Scott FarrowCarnegie MellonPittsburgh, PA

R. Wayne GodwinBASF Corp.Charlotte, NC

A. Seth GreenwaldMount Sinai Medical CenterCleveland, OH

Michael T. KelleyU. S. Department of CommerceWashington, DC

Robert ManildiHexcel Corp.Dublin, CA

James ManionU.S. Department of CommerceWashington, DC

Paul PendorfICI FiberiteOrange, CA

Randolph B. RobinsonManager, Technical EngineeringBeech Aircraft Corp.Wichita, KA

Robert RussellNorton CompanyNorthboro, MA

John ScanIonU.S. Army Corps of EngineersVicksburg, MS

Moira SheaU.S. Department of CommerceWashington, DC

Nicholas SpencerCiba-Geigy Corp.Fountain-Valley,

Dick J. WilkinsUniversity of DeNewark, DE

David Wirth

CA

aware

Coors Ceramics Co.Golden, CO

Government/University/Industry Collaborations Workshop ParticipantsJan. 12, 1987

Michael G. BoltonLehigh UniversityBethlehem, PA

Ed CohenNew Jersey Science and

Technology CommissionTrenton, NJ

Dan DimancescuTechnology and Strategies GroupCambridge, MA

Henry EtzkowitzRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroy, NY

Robert M. FisherLawrence Berkeley LaboratoriesBerkeley, CA

Sarah Shauf FrielCentocor, Inc.Malvern, PA

OUTSIDE REVIEWERSStanley AbkowitzDynamet Technologies, Inc.

Craig BallingerFederal Highway Administration

Gregory B. BartholdAluminum Co. of America

E. Reed BellShell Chemical Co.

Arden BementTRW, Inc.

William BennettAMOCO

William BroatchNARMCO Materials

Robert E. GeeMidwest Technology

Development InstituteSt. Paul, MN

Carmela HaklischRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroy, NY

Steven HsuNational Bureau of StandardsGaithersburg, MD

Bernard H. KearRutgers UniversityPiscataway, NJ

Ronald LatanisionMassachusetts Institute of


Henry BrownSociety for the Advancement of

Materials and ProcessEngineering

Stephen D. BryenU.S. Department of Defense

Harris BurteAir Force Materials Lab

Stan ChannonPrivate Consultant

Ed CohenNew Jersey Science and

Technology Commission

Dan CookU.S. Department of Commerce

Samuel Thomas PicrauxSandia National LaboratoryAlbuquerque, NM

Dwight A. SangreyRensselaer PolytechnicTroy, NY

Warren D. SiemensMartin-Marietta EnergyOak Ridge, TN

Thomas Rhyne

Institute

Systems

Microelectronics and ComputerTechnology Corp.

Austin, TX

Amy L. WaltonJet Propulsion LaboratoriesPasadena, CA

Leslie G. CookeHysol-Grafil Inc.

Dominique CottoEmbassy of France

Anthony CoxEmbassy of Great Britain

Sam DastinGrumman Aircraft Systems

Dick DauksysHexcel Corp.

Vince DecainU.S. Department of Commerce

Raymond F. DeckerUniversity Science Partners, Inc.

Harry CookChrysler Motors Corp.

App. A—Contractors and Workshop Participants ● 319

Wim van DeelenDelegation of the Commission of

European Communities

Gail DiSalvoCiba-Geigy Corp.

Joe DolowyDWA Composite Specialties, Inc.

Mike DowellUnion Carbide Corp.

Donald E. EllisonDonald Ellison & Associates, Inc.

Henry EtzkowitzRensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Renee G. FordMIT Press

David ForestFerro Corp.

Kenneth FosterU.S. Department

Sarah Shauf FrielCentocor, Inc.

I. FreundU.S. Polymeric

of Defense

Geoffrey FrohnsdorffNational Bureau of Standards

Robert E. GeeMidwest Technology Development

Institute

Harold GegelWright-Patterson Air Force Base

Louis A. GonzalezMetal Matrix Composite

Information Analysis Center

Robert J. GottschallU.S. Department of Energy

Michael GreenfieldNational Aeronautics and Space

Administration

Don GubserNaval Research Lab

Tim GutowskiMassachusetts Institute of

Technology

Carmela HaklischRensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Richard HelmuthPortland Cement Association

Robert KatzArmy Materials Technology

Laboratories

Joe JacksonSuppliers of Advanced Composite

Materials Association

Manfred KaminskySurface Treatment Science

International

Charles KaufmannAmerican Cyanamid

Mike KelleyU.S. Department of Commerce

Joseph KirklandE.l. du Pont de Nemours & Co.

Glenn KuebelerHercules Aerospace Co.

Bernard Levyinland Steel Research Laboratories

Emile G. LouzadaNetherlands Embassy

Bernard MagginNational Research Council

Robert ManildiHexcel Corp.

Dick McLaneBoeing Commercial Airplane Co.

Bruce MerrifieldU.S. Department of Commerce

Robert MurphyBASF Structural Materials, Inc.

Seymour NewmanFord Motor Co.

Chuck NorthrupStrategic Defense Initiative Office

Paul PendorfICI Fiberite

Jerome PershU.S. Department of Defense

John QuinlivanBoeing Commercial Airplane Co.

Darrell RenekerOffice of Science and Technology

Policy

Thomas RhyneMicroelectronics & Computer

Technology Corp.

William C. RileyResearch Opportunities, Inc.

Maxine SavitzGarrett Corp.

Lyle SchwartzNational Bureau of Standards

Roger SeifriedCincinnati Milacron

Moira SheaU.S. Department of Commerce

Jacques ShouttensMetal Matrix Composite

Information Analysis Center

J. Nicholas SpencerCiba-Geigy Corp.

Jim StephanCoors Biomedical

Charles WestResin Research Laboratories

James M. WyckoffNational Bureau of Standards

Clyde YatesU.S. Polymeric

Appendix B

Glossary

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ACAP

ACCP

ACerSAIChE

AIST

AI-Li alloysAMRF

ARALL

ASTM

BRITE

BMFT

CADCAFE

CAM

CAMDEC

CARE

CBCCMCCNC machines

CNRS

CoCom

CoGSME

COMATCVDDAR

DARPA

DoD

320

–Advanced CompositeAirframe Program

–Advanced Ceramics andComposites Partnership

–American Ceramics Society–American Institute of

Chemical Engineers—Agency of Industrial Science

and Technology (Japan)—aluminum-lithium alloys–Automated Manufacturing

Research Facility—aramid-reinforced aluminum

composite–American Society for the

Testing of Materials–Basic Research in Industrial

Technologies for Europe–Ministry for Research and

Technology (West Germany)—computer-aided design—corporate average fleet fuel

economy—computer-aided

manufacturing–Ceramic Advanced

Manufacturing Developmentand Engineering Center

–Ceramic Applications forReciprocating Engines (UnitedKingdom)

—chemically-bonded ceramic—ceramic matrix composite—computer numerically

controlled machine tools–Centre Nationale de la

Recherche Scientifique(France)

—Coordinating Committee forMultilateral Export Controls

–Composites Group of theSociety of ManufacturingEngineers

–Committee on Materials—chemical vapor deposition–Defense Acquisition

Regulations–Defense Avanced Research

Projects Agency–U.S. Department of Defense

DOE –U.S. Department of EnergyDTI –Department of Trade and

Industry (United Kingdom)DTIC –Defense Technical

Information CenterEAP –Experimental Aircraft ProgramEAR –Export Administration

RegulationsEC –European CommunityEFA –European Fighter AircraftEG —electrogalvanizationELlSA –Export License Status AdvisorERC –Engineering Research CenterEURAM, EURAM II —European Research on

Advanced Materials ProgramsEUREKA —a European cooperative

research programFAA –Federal Aviation

AdministrationFAR —Federal Acquisition

RegulationsFDA –Food and Drug

AdministrationFMS —Federation of Materials

SocietiesFRP –fiber-reinforced plasticsGIRI –Government Industrial

Research Institutes (Japan)GIFRP –glass fiber-reinforced plasticGNP –Gross National ProductGPa –gigapascal (billions of

newtons per square meter)GrFRP –graphite fiber-reinforced

plasticHIP –hot isostatic pressingHPC –high-performance ceramicsHSLA –high-strength, low-alloy steelHSRTM –high-speed resin transfer

moldingIDE —investigational device

exemptionIEA –International Energy AgencyIOP-TK –innovation-Oriented Research

Program—Technical Ceramics(Netherlands)

IR&D –Independent Research andDevelopment

IRSIA –Institute for theEncouragement of ScientificResearch in Industry andAgriculture (Belgium)

App B.—Glossary . 321

ITAR –International Traffic in ArmsRegulations

ITPA –Industrial TechnologyPromotion Association

IVL —individual validated licenseJAPATIC –Japan Patent Information

CenterJDB –Japan Development BankJFCA –Japan Fine Ceramics

AssociationJFCC –Japan Fine Ceramics CenterJITA –Japan Industrial Technology

AssociationJRDC –Japan Research and

Development Corporationksi —thousand pounds per square

inchLCP –liquid crystal polymerLEFM –linear elastic fracture

mechanicsManTech Program –Manufacturing Technologies

MAP

MDF cementMITI

MMCMPa

Msi

NACRA

NASA

NASPNBSNC machines

NCMC

NDT, NDE

NIRIM

NRDC

NSFNTIS

Program–Manufacturing Automation

Protocol—macro-defect free cement–Ministry of International

Trade and industry (Japan)—metal matrix composite—megapascal (millions of

newtons per square meter)—millions of pounds per square

inch—National Applied Ceramic

Research Association–National Aeronautics and

Space Administration–National Aerospace Plane–National Bureau of Standards—numerically controlled

machine tools–National Critical Materials

Council—nondestructive testing,

nondestructive evaluation–National Institute for

Research on InorganicMaterials (Japan)

–National Research andDevelopment Corporation(United Kingdom)

–National Science Foundation–National Technical

Information Service

OTA

PANPBT

PEEKPESPETPMCPPSPVDR&DRANN Program

RIMRST

RTMSAE

SACMA

SAIC

SAMPE

SBIR Program

SDISIC code

SME

SMCSPESPI

SPIE

SSRI

STA

STELA

USACA

VAMAS

–Office of TechnologyAssessment

–polyacrylonitrile–poly (phenylbenzo-

bisthiazole)–polyether etherketone—polyether sulfone—polyethyleneterephthalate—polymer matrix composite–polyphenylene sulphide—physical vapor deposition—research and development–Research Applied to National

Needs Program—reaction injection molding—rapid solidification

technology—resin transfer molding—Society of Automotive

Engineers–Suppliers of Advanced

Composite MaterialsAssociation

–Science ApplicationsInternational Corporation

—Society for the Advancementof Material and ProcessEngineering

—Small Business InnovationResearch Program

—Strategic Defense Initiative–Standard Industrial

Classification code–Society of Manufacturing

Engineers—sheet molding compound–Society of Plastics Engineers–Society of the Plastics

Industry–Society of Photo-Optical

Instrumentation Engineers–Swedish Silicate Research

Institute–Science and Technology

Agency (Japan)–System for Tracking Export

License Applications–United States Advanced

Ceramics Association–Versailles Project on

Advanced Materials andStandards


Glossary of Termsablative materials: Materials that protect the structure

of aircraft or missiles from the high temperaturesgenerated by air friction by themselves becomingmelted or vaporized,

adiabatic: Referring to any process in which there isno gain or loss of heat.

advanced ceramics: Ceramics made from extremelypure starting materials and consolidated at hightemperatures to yield dense, durable structures.

advanced composites: Polymer matrix compositesreinforced with continuous fibers, usually graph-ite, aramid, or high-stiffness glass; these compositesgenerally have high strength and stiffness, lightweight, and are relatively expensive.

advanced materials: Materials that are built up fromconstituents and whose properties are tailored tomeet the requirements of specific end uses.

aggregate: Inert filler material such as sand or gravelused with a cementing medium to form concreteor mortar.

alloy: A material having metallic properties and con-sisting of two or more elements.

anisotropic: Showing different physical or mechani-cal properties in different directions.

aramid: Lightweight polyaromatic amide fibers hav-ing excellent high temperature, flame, and electri-cal properties. These fibers are used as high-strength reinforcement in composites.

axial: In advanced composites, referring to the direc-tion parallel to the orientation of the continuousfiber reinforcement.

bioceramics or biomaterials: Ceramics or other ma-terials that are compatible with biological tissues,and that therefore can be used inside the body.

brittle fracture: A break in a brittle material due tothe propagation of cracks originating at flaws.

carbon/carbon composites: Composites consisting ofpyrolyzed carbon matrices reinforced with carbonfibers; with appropriate coatings to prevent oxida-tion, these composites are capable of withstand-ing extremely high temperatures.

carbon/graphite: These fibers, which are the domi-nant reinforcement in “advanced” composites, areproduced by pyrolysis of an organic precursor, e.g.polyacryonitrile (PAN), or petroleum pitch, in aninert atmosphere. Depending on the process tem-perature, fibers having high strength or high elas-tic modulus may be produced.

cement: A dry powder made from silica, alumina,lime, iron oxide, and magnesia that forms a hard-ened paste when mixed with water; it may be usedin this form as a structural material, or used as abinder with aggregate to form concrete.

ceramic: An inorganic, nonmetallic solid.ceramic matrix composite: A composite consisting of

a ceramic matrix reinforced with ceramic particu-Iates, whiskers, or fibers.

charge pattern: The pattern of resins and reinforce-ments introduced into a mold prior to the moldingprocess.

chemically-bonded ceramics: Used here to distin-guish advanced cements and concretes, which areconsolidated through chemical reactions at am-bient temperatures (generally involving uptake ofwater) from high performance ceramics, such assilicon nitride and silicon carbide, which are den-sified at high temperatures.

coefficient of thermal expansion: The change in vol-ume of a material associated with a 1 degree in-crease in temperature.

composite: Any combination of particles, whiskers,or fibers in a common matrix.

compressive stress: A stress that causes an elastic bodyto shorten in the direction of the applied force.

concrete: A mixture of aggregate, water, and a binder(usually portland cement) that hardens to a stone-Iike condition when dry.

consolidation of parts: Integration of a number of for-merly discrete parts into a single part that encom-passes several functions; a key advantage of engi-neered materials such as ceramics and composites.

continuous fiber: A reinforcing fiber in a compositethat has a length comparable to the dimensions ofthe structure.

creep: A time-dependent strain of a solid, caused bystress.

critical material: A material whose availability is con-sidered to be extremely important in time of na-tional emergency or for the economic well-beingof a nation.

cross-linking: The formation of chemical bonds be-tween formerly separate polymer chains.

crystal: A homogeneous solid in which the atoms ormolecules are arranged in a regularly repeatingpattern.

curing: Process in which thermosetting resins are con-verted by chemical reactions into solid, crosslinkedstructures; usually accomplished by the applicationof heat and pressure.

deflection: Deformation of a material produced with-out fracture.

deformation, plastic deformation: Any alteration ofshape or dimensions of a body caused by stresses,thermal expansion or contraction, chemical ormetallurgical transformations, or shrinkage and ex-pansion due to moisture change.

delamination: Separation of a layered structure intoits constituent layers.

App B.—Glossary . 323

dielectric: A material that is an electrical insulator orin which an electric field can be sustained with aminimum dissipation in power.

diffusion: The movement of mass, in the form of dis-crete atoms or molecules, through a medium.

dispersion: Finely divided particles of one materialheld in suspension in another material.

dual-use technology: A technology with both militaryand commercial applications.

ductility: The ability of a material to be plasticallydeformed by elongation without fracture.

E-glass: A borosilicate glass most used for glass fibersin reinforced plastics.

elasticity: The property whereby a solid material de-forms under stress but recovers its original config-uration when the stress is removed.

extrusion: A process in which a hot or cold semisoftsolid material, such as metal or plastic, is forcedthrough the orifice of a die to produce a continu-ously formed piece in the shape of the desiredproduct.

failure: Collapse, breakage, or bending of a structureor structural element such that it can no longer ful-fill its purpose.

fatigue: Failure of a material by cracking resulting fromrepeated or cyclic stress.

fiber-reinforced plastic: An inexpensive, relativelylow-strength composite usually consisting of shortglass fibers in a polyester or vinylester matrix; tobe distinguished from an advanced composite.

filtration: A process of separating particulate matterfrom a fluid, by passing the fluid carrier througha medium that will not pass the particulates.

flexure: Any bending deformation of an elastic bodyin which the points originally lying on any straightline are displaced to form a plane curve.

fracture stress: The minimum stress that will causefracture, also known as fracture strength.

glass: A state of matter that is amorphous or disor-dered like a liquid in structure, hence capable ofcontinuous composition variation and lacking atrue melting point, but softening gradually with in-creasing temperature.

glass-ceramic: Solid material, partly crystalline andpartly glassy, formed by the controlled crystalliza-tion of certain glasses.

grain: One of many crystallite comprising a poly-crystalline material.

green state, greenware: A term for formed ceramicarticles in the unfired condition.

hardness: Resistance of a material to indentation,scratching, abrasion, or cutting.

heat exchanger: A device that transfers heat from onefluid to another or to the environment, e.g. an au-tomobile radiator.

heat treatment: Heating and cooling of a material toobtain desired properties or conditions.

high-strength low-alloy steel: Steel containing smallamounts of niobium or vanadium, and having su-perior strength, toughness, and resistance to cor-rosion compared with carbon steel.

holography: A technique for recording and laterreconstructing the amplitude and phase distribu-tions of a wave disturbance.

hot isostatic pressing: A forming or compaction proc-ess for ceramic or metal powders in which the moldis flexible and pressure is applied hydrostatically orpneumatically from all sides.

hot pressing: Forming a metal powder compact or aceramic shape by applying unidirectional pressureand heat simultaneously at temperatures highenough for sintering to occur.

impact strength: Ability of a material to resist shockloading.

inclusion: A flaw in a material consisting of a trappedimpurity particle.

injection molding: Forming metal, plastic, or ceramicshapes by injecting a measured quantity of the ma-terial into shaped molds.

internal stress, residual stress: A stress system withina solid (e.g. thermal stresses resulting from rapidcooling from a high temperature) that is not depen-dent on external forces.

interphase, interface: The boundary layer betweenthe matrix and reinforcement in a composite.

joining: Coupling together of two materials across theinterface between them, e.g. through applicationof adhesives, welding, brazing, diffusion bonding,etc.

lay-up: A process for fabricating composite structuresinvolving placement of sequential layers of matrix-impregnated fibers on a mold surface.

load: The weight that is supported by a structure, ormechanical force that is applied to a body.

Mach number: The ratio of the speed of a body tothe speed of sound in the surrounding fluid.

matrix: The composite constituent that binds the rein-forcement together and transmits loads betweenreinforcing fibers.

merchant market: The market for intermediate com-ponents or materials that can be used in the man-ufacture of a variety of finished systems.

metal: An opaque material with good electrical andthermal conductivities, ductility, and reflectivity;


properties are related to the structure in which thepositively charged nuclei are bonded through afield of mobile electrons which surrounds them,forming a close-packed structure.

metal matrix composite: Composite having a metalmatrix (often aluminum) reinforced with ceramicparticulate, whiskers, or fibers.

microstructure: The internal structure of a solidviewed on a distance scale on the order of microm-eters. The microstructure is controlled by process-ing, and determines the performance characteris-tics of the structure.

mini-mills: Steel producers using electric furnaces togenerate commodity-grade bar and rod productsfrom steel scrap; to be distinguished from integratedmills, which produce steel products from basic rawmaterials.

modulus of elasticity: A parameter characterizing thestiffness of a material, or its resistance to deforma-tion under stress. For example, steel has a relativelyhigh modulus, while Jello has a low modulus.

monolithic: Constructed from a single type of ma-terial.

near-net-shape The original formation of a part to ashape that is as close to the desired final shape aspossible, requiring as few finishing operations aspossible.

nondestructive testing, evaluation: Any testingmethod that does not involve damaging or destroy-ing the test sample; includes use of x-rays, ultra-sonics, magnetic flux, etc.

offset: Agreement by which the seller of a high-technology product transfers relevant productiontechnology to the buyer as a condition of the sale.

phase: A region of a material that is physically distinctand is homogeneous in chemical composition.

pitch: A complex mixture of partially-polymerized aro-matic hydrocarbons derived from heat treatmentof coal or petroleum; can be spun into a fiber andpyrolyzed to produce graphite.

plasticity: The property of a solid body whereby it un-dergoes a permanent change in shape or size whensubjected to a stress exceeding a particular value,called the yield value.

polyacrylonitrile: Organic precursor that can be spuninto fibers and pyrolized to produce graphite fibers.

polymer: Substance made of giant molecules formedby the union of simple molecules (monomers); forexample, polymerization of ethylene forms a poly-ethylene chain.

polymer matrix composite: Composite consisting ofan organic, polymeric matrix reinforced with par-ticulate, short fibers, or continuous fibers.

pore, porosity: Flaw involving unfilled space insidea material that frequently limits the materialstrength.

powder metallurgy: Referring to the fabrication ofmetallic shapes by compressing metal powders andapplying heat without melting to produce a dense,durable structure.

precursor: An intermediate material that can be con-verted to the final desired material by a chemicalreaction, often at high temperatures.

preform: A compact of fibers in the shape of the finalstructure that is placed in a mold and impregnatedwith the matrix to form a composite.

prepreg: Fiber reinforcement form (usually tape,woven mat, or broadgoods) that has been preim-pregnated with a liquid thermosetting resin andcured to a viscous second stage. Thermoplasticprepregs are also available.

proof test: A predetermined test load, greater than theintended service load, to which a specimen is sub-jected before acceptance for use.

qualification: Formal series of tests by which the per-formance and reliability of a material or system maybe evaluated prior to final approval or acceptance.

radiography: The technique of producing a photo-graphic image of an opaque specimen by transmit-ting a beam of x-rays or gamma rays through it ontoan adjacent photographic film; the transmitted in-tensity reflects variations in thickness, density, andchemical composition of the specimen.

radome: A strong, thin shell made from a dielectricmaterial, used to house a radar antenna.

reciprocating (engine or machinery): Having a mo-tion that repeats itself in a cyclic fashion.

reexport controls: Requirements that foreign-basedfirms wishing to export certain U.S. technologiesto third countries must apply to the United Statesfor a license to do so.

refractory: Capable of enduring high temperatureconditions.

resin: Organic polymer, usually a viscous liquid, thatcan be processed to yield a solid plastic.

scale-up: The conversion of a low-volume laboratoryprocess into a high-volume process suitable forcommercial production.

S-glass: A magnesia-alumina-silicate glass that pro-vides high stiffness fiber reinforcement. Oftenregarded as the reinforcement fiber dividing “ad-vanced” composites from reinforced plastics.

shearing stress: A stress in which the material on oneside of a surface pushes on the material on theother side of the surface with a force that is paral-lel to the surface.

App B.—Glossary “ 325

sheet molding compound: An inexpensive, low-strength composite consisting of chopped glassfibers in a polyester matrix, which is produced insheets that can be compression molded to give thefinal shape.

sintering: Method for the consolidation and densifi-cation of metal or ceramic powders by heatingwithout melting.

slip casting, slip, slurry: A forming process in the man-ufacture of shaped refractories, cermets, and othermaterials in which slip is poured into porous plas-ter molds. Slip or slurry is a suspension of fine clayin water with a creamy consistency.

specific strength or stiffness: The strength or stiffnessof a material divided by its density; this propertycan be used to compare the structural efficiencyof various materials.

strain: Change in length of an object in response toan applied stress, divided by undistorted length.

stress: The force acting across a unit area in a solidmaterial in resisting the separation, compacting, orsliding that is induced by external forces.

structural materials: Those materials that supportmost of the loading on the whole system.

substrate: Base surface on which a material adheres,for example a surface to be coated.

systems approach (to cost or to design): Considera-tion of product design, manufacture, testing, andlife cycle as an indivisible whole; see consolidationof parts.

tensile strength, ultimate tensile strength: The max-imum stress that a material subjected to a stretch-ing load can withstand without breaking.

thermal conductivity: The rate of heat flow understeady conditions through unit area per unit tem-perature in the direction perpendicular to the area;the ability of a material to conduct heat.

thermoplastic resin: A material containing discretepolymer molecules that will repeatedly soften whenheated and harden when cooled; for example,polyethylene, vinyls, nylons, and fluorocarbons.

thermosetting resin: An organic material initially hav-ing low viscosity that hardens due to the formation

of chemical bonds between polymer chains. Oncecured, the material cannot be melted or remoldedwithout destroying its original characteristics; ex-amples are epoxies, phenolics, and polyamides.

toughness: A parameter measuring the amount ofenergy required to fracture a material in the pres-ence of flaws.

transverse: In advanced composites, referring to thedirection perpendicular to the orientation of thecontinuous fiber reinforcement.

tribology: The study of the phenomena and mecha-nisms of friction, lubrication and wear of surfacesin relative motion.

turbocharger: A centrifugal air compressor driven bythe flow of exhaust gases and used to increase in-duction system pressure in an internal combustionreciprocating engine.

ultrasonic testing: A nondestructive test method thatemploys high-frequency mechanical vibrationenergy to detect and locate structural discontinui-ties and to measure the thickness of a variety of ma-terials.

unibody: Integrated structure containing the chassisas well as elements of the body of an automobile.

value-added: The increment by which the value ofthe output of an operation exceeds the value of theinputs.

viscoelasticity: Property of a material that is viscousbut that also exhibits certain elastic properties, suchas the ability to store energy of deformation, andin which the application of a stress gives rise to astrain that approaches its equilibrium value slowly.

wear: Deterioration of a surface due to materialremoval caused by friction between it and anothermaterial.

nettability: The abiIity of any solid surface to be wet-ted when in contact with a liquid.

whisker: A short, single crystal fiber with a length-to-diameter ratio of 10 or more, often used to improvethe fracture toughness of ceramics,

yield strength: The lowest stress at which a materialundergoes plastic deformation. Below this stress,the material is elastic.

Index

Acquisitionsamong automotive support industries, 178Japanese industrial, 211-212in U.S. advanced materials industry, 208, 209,

224-225, 237, 238, 241, 246in Western European advanced materials

markets, 217, 233, 244, 248see a/so Joint ventures

Advantages of advanced materials. SeePerformance

Aerospace industry. See Aircraft industry; Military;Space industry

Aircraft industryceramics use in, 11investment approach of, 190-191MMCs use in, 110-111, 112, 113, 114, 141PMCs use in, 73, 80, 81, 83-85, 141, 142-143substitution potential in, 18, 141-144

Aluminum industry. See Metals industriesAntitrust, 297Applications

for ceramics products, 10-12, 37, 38, 50-52MMCs tailorability to specific, 100, 106for MMCs, 13-14, 112-115for PMCs, 12-13, 73-74, 78, 155-184see also Markets

Australia, 90Automation

of design and processing technologies, 16,79-81, 128-131, 169, 170

implementing, 16, 131-134NDE techniques compatible with, 49PMC use in, 16, 86

Automotive industryceramics use by, 11, 58-64impacts of new processing technologies on, 19,

173-177impact on support industries of new PMCs,

178-181investment approach of, 190MMCs use by, 14, 99, 104, 106, 107-108, 111,

112, 113, 114PMC fabrication possibilities for, 165-173PMCs use in, 73, 75, 85-86, 144-146, 155-184R&D on PMCs by, 19, 93, 156, 169, 182-183substitution potential in, 18, 144-146

Barriersto automation of design and processing

technologies, 131-134to ceramics applications, 10-11, 37-38, 38-39,

42, 56, 57-58

industry’s view of, 194-198labor costs as, 19, 80to MMCs use, 13-14, 15, 99, 100-102, 103-104,

105-106national security effects as, 23-24, 28-29, 238,

260-261, 269-270, 271, 286, 287, 292-294to PMC applications, 12, 13, 18, 19, 73, 80, 86,

88-89, 93-95, 156, 160, 182-183to PMCs use in automotive industry, 19, 86,

155, 156, 160, 167-168, 169, 173, 182-183Belgium, national R&D program in, 220Bioceramics industry, 11, 37, 56-57, 65-66Biomedical industry

investment attitudes of, 191PMCs use in, 73, 89-90

Biotechnology industry, 92, 264Budgets

advanced ceramics R&D, 21, 22, 69, 70,203-204, 219-220

Federal laboratories, 256MMCs R&D, 23, 115, 205, 238, 239PMCs R&D, 93, 229, 230, 234-235, 236see a/so Costs; Expenditures; Funding

Canadaoffsets and, 285PMC applications in, 90reexport restrictions by, 277standards development by, 127

Cementadditives in, 47-48applications using, 54

Ceramic matrix composites (CMCs)future trends for, 64-65, 270, 283properties of, 10, 37, 40-41, 44, 68R&D for 12, 38, 45, 66-70

Chemically bonded ceramics (CBCs), 47-49, 69China, 88Clayton Act, Section 7 (15 U.S.C. 18), 297Coatings

advantages of ceramic, 10, 37, 41-42markets for ceramic, 54, 61of MMCs, 102PMC, 151processes for the production of ceramic, 45-46

Collabssorationcommercialization as goal of research, 262-263coordination of R&D programs for, 256, 258facilitation of government/university/industry, 3,

27, 28, 291, 295, 296-298government/industry in Western Europe, 234,

239

329


Japanese government/industry, 1, 2, 57,213-216, 229-230

program goals, 251, 252, 261-263U.S. Government/industry, 24-25, 26, 57,

209-210, 226, 303-304see also Commercialization; Research and

Development (R&D)Commercialization

Australian efforts toward, 90Canadian efforts toward, 90Chinese efforts toward, 88English efforts toward, 88, 90, 113, 219, 230,

236, 240effective exploitation of military R&D

investments, 3, 27, 28-30, 291, 298-303French efforts toward, 57, 90, 219, 230, 236,

240industrial investment criteria, 191-192, 193-194Israeli efforts toward, 88Italian efforts toward, 90, 220, 230Japanese efforts toward, 1, 2, 14, 50-52, 57, 59,

61, 62, 86, 88, 90, 99, 104, 106, 107-108,111, 112, 211, 227, 238

of MMCs, 113-115, 141of PMCs, 12-13, 74-75, 82, 83, 88, 141,

142-143, 155-184of R&D results, 251, 252, 253, 261, 262-264Swiss efforts toward, 88West German effort toward, 52, 57, 62, 88, 90,

230see also Applications; Barriers; Markets;

Research and Development; individual end-user industrial sectors

Computerization. See AutomationConcrete

additives in, 48-49applications of, 54-56, 147-148

Consortiaindustrial, 256university-based, 251, 255, 257, 259

Construction industryadvanced materials for, 11, 37, 49, 55-56, 74,

87-89investment attitudes of, 189-190substitution potential in, 18, 147-148

Container industry, 18, 73, 148-149costs

of advanced PMC materials, 75, 84, 87, 142,160, 282

of advanced PMC parts, 12, 75, 80, 86ceramic materials, 49, 54, 56ceramic parts, 37, 52, 58consideration of, for automation, 131, 132, 133effects of, on supply, 138fuel, 17, 124, 142, 182

liability, 196-197life-cycle, 17, 83, 124, 142of MMC materials, 13, 14, 99, 100, 101,

105-106, 110-111, 116of MMC parts, 110-111, 237of MMC processing methods, 13, 14, 99,

105-106, 107-108, 109, 110, 115-116, 117of materials properties data development, 127as motivation for materials substitution, 141,

147-148of overdesign, 79parts consolidation resulting in lower assembly,

12, 86, 142, 176-177systems approach to 17, 88, 123-124of testing, 111, 197-198, 283-284

Cost effectivenessof automation, 1, 2, 58, 129, 133of high-strength concrete, 147-148of MMCs, 105, 111of production level NDE techniques, 49, 50of PMC use in aircraft, 83

Critical Agricultural Materials Act–1984 (PublicLaw 98-284), 92

Datamaterials safety, 50, 111-112MMCs property, 100PMC energy absorption, 162-164

Databasesautomation’s dependence on, 15, 128, 131,

132-133, 134for CMCs, 122-123development of PMCs, 95, 122-123, 162DoD-generated, 280-281, 301materials qualification, 283-284need for, 110, 117, 123, 304

Defense Appropriations Act–1987 (Public Law100-202), 302

Defense Authorization Act–1 984 (Public Law98-94), 29, 278, 301

Defense industry. See Aircraft industry; Military;Space industry

Defense Production Act–1950 (64 Stat. 798), 7,196, 284, 307

Defense Production Act Amendments–1984(Public Law 98-265), 284, 285

Demand, 2-3, 18, 138-139Design

of advanced ceramics, 42of advanced PMCs, 12, 15-16, 18-19, 73, 79, 86,

89, 91, 93, 94, 162, 173-177automation systems, 16, 128, 131, 132-133ceramic improvement through, 39-40integrated, 15-16, 121, 122-123MMCs, 106, 107

Index . 331

multidisciplinary approach to, 16, 125see a/so Processing; Research and development

Education, 16-17, 42, 124-125, 177, 178, 180,194, 261, 306

End-user industriesalternative materials substitution in, 139-141encouragement of long-term investment by, 3,

27, 28, 291, 295, 296investment attitudes of, 1, 2, 11-12, 19, 20, 21,

57, 59, 62-64, 187, 189-191, 192-198Japanese, 229, 238major U. S., 207, 221-222, 224, 238standards development by, 127in Western Europe, 231-233, 239see a/so individual industrial sectors

Energyabsorption characteristics of PMCs, 162-164costs, 17, 73, 124, 142future trends with ceramics, 66savings, 17, 57, 58, 62, 83, 85, 124, 142, 182

Energy Policy and Conservation Act–1 975 (PublicLaw 94-163), 144

Engine industryceramics use by, 11, 42, 57, 58-64see a/so Aircraft industry; Automobile industry;

Space industryEnvironments, advanced materials behavior in, 15,

38, 39, 41, 67-68, 95, 105, 162Expenditures

on advanced PMCs, 12, 22, 75, 84, 89, 204,220, 221, 224, 270

on ceramics, 21, 42, 53-54, 58, 62-63, 203, 207on MMCs, 115U.S. advanced structural ceramics and

composites, 1, 11, 38, 42, 52, 53, 54, 56, 58,62

personal consumption (U. S.), 138, 139see a/so Budgets; Costs; Funding; Investment

Export Administration Act–1979 (Public Law96-72), 272

Export Administration Amendments Act–1 985(Public Law 99-64), 277

Export controls, 28-29, 195, 238, 269, 271,272-277, 286, 299-301

Europe. See European Community (EC); WesternEurope; individual countries in

European Community (EC)advanced materials programs of, 204-205,

217-219, 234-235standards development by, 127see a/so Western Europe; individual member

countries

Fabrication. See ProcessingFederal Government

commercialization policy issues and options,2-4, 26-33

ceramics use, estimates by, 52, 58, 61evaluation and approval of advanced materials

use by, 56, 84, 88, 123, 181-182, 197-198data dissemination programs, 29, 123, 305laboratories, 209, 251, 253, 256, 257, 259-260,

262, 291R&D finding by, 253-254, 257, 258, 293, 294,

298, 299regulations applying to PMC fabrication, 82,

181-182standards development efforts of, 127-128, 132,

195-196see a/so Military

Federal Technology Transfer Act–1 986 (PublicLaw 99-502), 259

Fermenters, 65-66Fibers

ceramic composite reinforcement with, 10, 37,44-45

health hazards from, 50, 82, 111-112improvement in technologies of, 183MMCs reinforcement with, 13, 99, 102, 103,

104, 105, 107-108PMCs reinforcement with, 12, 19, 76, 77, 78,

79, 88, 90, 95, 158-160Food and Drug, Device and Cosmetics

Act–1976 (Public Law 84-295), 197France

advanced ceramics use in, 57national R&D program in, 219, 236, 240offsets and, 285, 286PMC applications in, 90, 230standards development by, 127

Fuel. See EnergyFunding

private sector R&D, 59, 209, 213-214, 229-230,237-238, 252-253, 254

U.S. Government R&D, 2, 57, 66, 69, 70, 93,115, 209, 226, 238, 269, 270, 271, 282, 286,293, 294, 298, 299

see a/so Budgets; Costs; Expenditures;Investment

Germany, Federal Republic of. See West GermanyGovernment, Federal. See Federal GovernmentGovernment, State. See State GovernmentGreat Britain. See United KingdomGuidelines. See Standards


Healtheffects of PMCs, 82, 181hazards related to ceramic materials, 50MMCs and human, 111-112

Historyof collaborative R&D arrangements, 253of offsets use, 285, 286of reinforcement technology, 49, 156, 157-158

Industryadvanced ceramics use by, 10-12, 50-64collaborative programs, participation by foreign,

260-261database development by, 123, 126-127, 132export control policy, representation by, 277follow-on work from collaborations, 263-264materials substitution effects on, 18, 137-152MMCs use by, 13-14, 112-115participation in R&D programs, 251, 252-253,

254, 255, 256, 258, 260-261, 262PMCs use by, 12-13, 73-74, 75, 82-90R&D investment by U. S., 209, 226Structure of U.S. advanced materials, 207-209,

220-225, 237-238see also End-user industries; Materials industries;

individual industrial sectorsInfrastructure, building a strong advanced

materials technology, 3-4, 27, 30-31, 194,291-292, 303-306

Intellectual property, 259Interphase

of ceramic composites, 68fiber/matrix, coatings for MMCs, 100, 116of PMCs, 77-78, 89, 94

Investmentcost-effective automation, 131-134encouragement of long-term, 3, 27, 28, 291,

295, 296industrial criteria for, 2, 11-12, 19-21, 57,

187-198see a/so Budgets; Expenditures; Funding

Israel, 88Italy

national R&D program in, 220offsets and, 285, 286PMC applications in, 90, 230standards development by, 127

Japanadvanced ceramics applications in, 50-52, 57,

59, 61, 62, 211advanced materials industry structure in, 211,

227-229, 238-239collaborative government-industry efforts in, 1,

2, 57, 213-216, 229-230, 293, 294, 309

foreign participation in advanced materialsmarket in, 211-213, 229

MMCs use in, 14, 99, 104, 106, 107-108, 111,112, 238

offsets and, 285, 286PAN precursor importation from, 223, 284PMC applications in, 86, 88, 90, 227R&D funding in, 213-214, 215, 229-230, 238standards development by, 127

Japanese Technical Literature Act–1986 (PublicLaw 99-382), 305

joint venturesamong automotive support industries, 178intra-industry, as response to materials

substitution threats, 150japanese, 212, 229, 230, 243, 247in U.S. advanced materials industry, 208-209,

225, 237, 242, 246in Western European advanced materials

industries, 217, 233, 245, 248see also Acquisitions; Licensing agreements

Labor. See PersonnelLaboratories. See Federal GovernmentLicensing agreements, 25, 225, 242, 243, 245,

246, 247, 248

Manufacturing. See Design; ProcessingMarkets

access to future, 2, 20, 59, 62-64, 187, 188,191, 192, 193-194

ceramics, 10-11, 37, 38, 42, 52-64foreign participation in U.S. advanced materials,

209, 225-226military, 1-2, 11, 37, 50, 53, 64, 73, 74, 82,

83-84, 86-87, 92, 112, 113, 115, 141-142,226, 269, 270

PMC, 12, 73-74, 82-90, 155-184projections for advanced materials, by private

industry, 58, 61, 115See a/so Applications

Materials industriesimpact of PMCs use in automotive industry on,

19, 178-179investment attitudes of, 187, 188-189, 192-198Japanese, 227-229major U. S., 207-208, 222-224, 237-238standards development by, 127substitution threat and development of, 150-152in Western Europe, 231

Metals industries, 18, 137-152, 179-180Military

advanced ceramics use by, 37, 50, 53, 64, 270advanced material markets in, 1-2, 11, 37, sO,

53, 64, 82, 83-84, 86-87, 92, 112, 113, 115,

Index ● 3 3 3

141-142, 226, 270advanced material technologies development by,

1, 2, 25-26, 53, 61, 82, 195-196, 226, 238,284-287

data information controls by, 269-270, 271,277-281

databases, 280-281, 301effective commercial exploitation of R & D

investments by, 3, 27, 28-30, 291, 298-303MMCs use by, 112, 113, 115, 283PMCs use by, 73, 74, 82, 83-84, 86-87, 92, 226,

270, 283procurement policy, 196, 283-285, 286standards development by, 127technology transfer from, 2, 28-29, 53, 195, 209,

259, 281-283see also Aircraft industry; Federal Government;

Space industryMining and Minerals Policy Act–1 970 (Public Law

91-631), 7, 307Modeling

computerized mathematical, 16, 128, 132methods for MMCs, 117PMC performance, 93, 94structure-property relationship, 79see a/so Testing

MonitoringPMCs during production process, 81see also Nondestructive evaluation; Testing

National Cooperative Research Act–1 984 (PublicLaw 98-462), 297

National Critical Materials Act–1984 (Public Law98-373), 4, 7-8, 92, 292, 307-310

National Materials Policy, Research andDevelopment Act–1980 (public Law 96-479),7, 307

National Materials Properties Data Network, 123Netherlands, 220, 285Nondestructive evaluation (NDE)

of ceramic materials, 37, 49for MMCs, 111, 116to reduce failure probability, 39, 41, 49techniques for PMCs, 81see also Monitoring; Testing

Offsets, 30, 164-165, 270, 285-286, 303Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act–1 987

(H.R.3), 304

Particulatein ceramic composites, 10, 37reinforcement of MMCs using, 13, 99, 100-101,

102, 103, 104, 107-108, 109-110

Patents, 197, 215, 259Performance

advantages of ceramic engines, 58, 61-62criteria for PMC use in automobiles, 155, 157,

161-165of MMCs, 13, 99, 100-106of reinforced PMCs, 12, 13, 73, 77-78, 160-161reliability of ceramics, 68, 69R&D to understand PMC, 93-95trade-offs, 79, 83, 85, 104, 131-132

Personnelcosts in PMC fabrication, 19, 80impact of new fabrication techniques on, 177

Plasticsrecycling of, 180-181, 182reinforced, 12, 74, 144-146unreinforced, 144-146, 148, 150-151

Policyadvanced materials, as a microcosm of U.S.

manufacturing 4, 33, 310-311Congressional and Administration differences

about, 4, 31-33, 307-310issues and options for implementing advanced

materials commercialization, 2-4, 26-33,291-292, 295-306

materials, 3, 19-21, 27, 28, 31-33, 187-198, 269,270, 271, 286-287, 295, 307-311

technology, 3-4, 27, 28-31, 194-196, 213, 238,260-261, 269-270, 271, 286, 292-294

Polyacrylonitrile (PAN), 30, 102, 142, 223, 270,284-285, 286, 302

Processingautomation of, 16, 128-131, 133-134for automotive technology, 182-183methods of PMC fabrication, 79-81, 86, 88,

165-173MMCs, 106, 107-110, 115-116R&D for, 19, 67, 80-81, 86, 93, 156, 169,

182-183techniques for advanced ceramics, 42-47

Procurement, 196, 270, 283-285, 286, 287, 302Production. See Commercialization; Design;

ProcessingProfessional societies

advanced materials support by, 210, 226-227national security policy influence on, 279-280,

286standards development by, 127

Quality control. See Automation; Processing;Standards; Testing

Reciprocating equipment, See AutomationRecycling industry

effects of supply on, 138


PMCs and, 19, 82, 180-181, 182substitutions and changes in, 149, 151-152

Reexport controls. See Export controlsReinforcement

of ceramic composites, 10, 37, 44-45of MMCs, 13, 99, 100-102, 103, 104, 105,

107-108of PMCs, 12, 19, 76, 77, 78, 79, 88, 90, 95,

158-160Reinforced plastic. See Plastic, reinforcedResearch

goals of collaborations performing, 261-263military funding of basic, 281-282, 301-302multidisciplinary approach to, 90, 125on PMC use and processing, 15, 86, 88-89, 90,

169, 173proprietary, in collaborative programs, 259-260

Research and Development (R&D)characteristics of collaborative programs,

254-255, 257-261commercialization of results of, 251, 252, 253,

261, 262-264effective government/university/industry

collaboration in, 3, 27, 28, 291, 295, 296-298European national programs for, 219-220,

235-236, 240Federal Government expenditures for, 2, 57, 66,

69, 70, 93, 115, 209, 226, 253-254, 257, 258,269, 270, 271, 282, 286

industrial investment criteria for, 191-193Japanese funding of, 213-214, 215, 229-230, 238priorities for, 15, 37-38, 56, 66-70, 74, 93-95,

115-117State support of, 209-210, 251, 254, 255,

257-258university work on, 209, 210U.S. industry investment in, 207-208, 209, 226,

237, 238, 258Resource Recovery Act–1 970 (Public Law

91-512), 7, 307Restructuring. See Acquisitions; joint ventures;

Licensing agreementsRobotics. See Automation

Safety. See HealthSensors. See Automation; Processing; TestingSheet molding compound (SMC)

commercial use of, 85, 144, 145, 157, 162fabrication processes using, 165-168properties of reinforced PMCs compared to, 77

South Korea, 226, 227Space industry

PMCs use in, 74, 75, 79-80, 81, 83-85, 91-92MMCs use in, 112, 113, 115see also Aircraft industry; Military

Spain, 285, 286Standards

development, 126-128, 132, 183, 306fuel economy, 182lack of MMC industry, 100testing, 126-127

State Government, R&D program involvement by,209-210, 251, 254, 255, 257-258

Steel industry. See Metals industriesStevenson-Wydler Act–1980 (Public Law 96-480),

253Strategic and Critical Materials Stockpiling

Act–1946 (60 Stat. 596), 7, 307Strategic and Critical Stockpiling Revision

Act–1979 (Pubic Law 96-41), 7, 307Strategic War Materials Act–1939 (53 Stat. 81 1),

7, 307Supply, 138, 139Surface Transportation Assistance Act–1986

(Public Law 100-1 7), 56Sweden

advanced ceramics use in, 62national R&D program in, 219offsets and, 285, 286standards development by, 128

Switzerland, 88

Tailorability. See Design, integratedTechnology

advanced ceramics, 64automation, 16, 49, 128-134advanced materials infrastructure, 3-4, 27, 30-31,

291-292, 303-306concrete reinforcement, 48-49, 54-56PMC manufacturing, 79-81, 86, 87, 88, 182-183policy, 3-4, 27, 28-31, 194-196, 260-261see a/so Processing; Automation;

CommercializationTechnology transfer

Government/Military to private sector, 2, 28-29,53, 195, 209, 259, 281-283

internationalization and, 21, 23-24, 225licensing agreements for, 213, 225, 233, 242,

243, 245, 246, 247, 248national security restrictions on, 23-24, 28-29,

238, 260-261, 269-270, 271, 286-287, 292-294proprietary interests effects on, 127, 195

Technology Transfer Act–1 986 (Public Law99-502), 253

Testingof bioceramics, 56-57costs of product certification, 197-198, 283-284of MMCs, 100, 111of PMCs, 79, 81

Index ● 3 3 5

see also Modeling; Monitoring; Nondestructiveevaluation

Thermoplasticscharacteristics of, 76-77fabrication processes using, 80-81, 161, 168-169,

173trend toward use of, 76-77, 83, 85, 161

Thermosescharacteristics of, 76fabrication processes using 79-80, 161, 165-168,

172thermotropic, 91

Trade associations, 286, 305advanced materials support by, 210, 226-227role of Japanese, 216standards development by, 127

Trendsaffecting materials content of automobiles,

144-146future, of advanced ceramics, 1, 2, 21-22, 64-66future, of MMCs, 1, 2, 14, 112, 113-115future, of PMCs, 13, 22-23, 90-92in industrial integration, 208, 224, 233in international business using advanced

materials, 21-24, 203-248market estimate, by private sector, 58, 59, 61,

115, 150-151toward thermoplastics’ use, 76-77, 83, 85, 94,

161

United KingdomMMCs applications in, 113national R&D program of, 219, 236, 240PAN precursor importation from, 223, 284PMCs applications in, 88, 90, 230standards development by, 127

Universities, advanced materials R&D by, 209,210, 251, 255, 257, 259

Unreinforced plastics. See Plastics, unreinforced

West Germanyadvanced ceramics use in, 52, 57, 62national R&D program in, 219, 236, 240PMC applications in, 88, 90, 230standards development in, 127, 128

Western Europeadvanced materials industry structures in,

216-217, 231-233, 239foreign participation in advanced materials

market in, 217, 233-234Government/industry collaborations in, 234PMC industry in, 230-231see also European Community (EC); individual

countries inWhiskers

use of, in ceramics composites, 10, 37, 44use of, in MMCs, 13, 99, 100-102, 109-110