Joseph F. Rakow, managing engineer at Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, discusses his experience with composite flaws.

As a PhD student at the University of Michigan, Joseph Rakow’s research carried him from advanced composites laboratories into failure analysis. Rakow has expertise in structural and mechanical engineering with emphasis on composites. As a failure analysis associate, companies call on him to figure out the how and why of a composite failure in their product.

As a failure analyst, what industries do you cover?

Because I’m in a consulting role, I’m involved with people from various industries. I mostly investigate composite failures in airplane accidents, broken pipelines, fire-damaged wind turbines and injuries involving sporting equipment. It’s my job to look at what happens when things break, what causes it to break or led to its failure.

What’s the biggest accident analysis you’ve conducted?

The biggest issue I’ve seen was in RV manufacturing. The company made sidewalls for the inside of the RV from glass-reinforced polymers. For a long time, they were buying face sheet material from a composite manufacturer. They would take a sheet and make a wall. Everything was going fine until at one point they were getting significant wrinkling, which obviously made customers upset. We did an investigation and uncovered that the supplier of the outside face sheet had recently changed its emissions handling processes to comply with EPA regulations. Part of the change was a switch in the manufacturing and curing parameters, so the parts weren’t achieving full cure and therefore they were shipping them undercured to the RV manufacturer. The parts weren’t completely cured until after the RV was made. During this time, the styrene off gas was eating away at the styrofoam core, making it wrinkly. A bunch of customer complaints led to refund requests and lawsuits. In the end, the RV manufacturer went out of business and the composite wall supplier spent more money than they needed to in order to fix the problem.

What common mistakes do composites manufacturers make?

There are common things like voids, air bubbles, under-curing of a material and not using appropriate materials, or if the part is laminated, layers are missing. The majority of the time we find companies have processes and quality controls set up to make sure it produces quality products, but bad products do slip through. Sometimes a quality control system wasn’t robust enough or something changed within the product, which can happen without them knowing. For example, a supplier changes an ingredient without warning the manufacturer.

How do you start an analysis?

The first step is to collect evidence, getting failed items and photographing key areas. We then look at it to identify common features to understand how the product was being used, what environment it’s being used in and what environment it failed in. Key elements to uncovering the problem are the items and documents, talk to the end user and manufacturer and collecting information that will help us piece together a scenario that led to failure. Sometimes that also involves some sort of engineering analysis, experimentation or simulation.

How long does a usual analysis take?

Projects usually take a few weeks, others years. It depends on what the issue is, what the financial and product exposure is (how much is out there) and how quickly parties respond.

What is the best advice you give clients?

I tell people that the first thing they should do is set up an operation, monitor its performance with potential failures in mind, asking: “What are quality controls that could be set to avoid failure?” For example, put controls in place to maintain appropriate temperatures, time and pressure. Then if there is a failure and you’re not sure what to do, the best thing to do is react early and quickly. Understand the problem as early as you can to see how widespread it is. If there is a report that a product failed, is it a predictor of future failures?

Where is there potential for composites in the future?

I think it depends on the industry. No specific part comes to mind, but I’d say look at any industry that uses composites and there is room for growth: civil engineering, marine, aerospace, medical devices. In each one we see increased use of composites and continue to see that trend. I think it’s mostly driven by designers wanting to give an “edge” and composites allow for that optimization. Twenty years ago no one cared about weight; they wanted cheap. That mentality has changed. Over the years composites have provided performance that you can’t get from other materials, primarily the ability to rehabilitate civil infrastructures. Without tearing down a bridge, you can rehabilitate it using composites to patch and improve performance.

In what area of the industry are the most problems?

I’d say the sporting goods industry is the most common industry. The reason for that is because composites are used to increase performance and make high performing products, which are then used by a wide range of skill users who don’t know how to take care of them or what composites are.

What sporting goods problems are most frequent?

Most calls I get are for bikes, helmets and outdoor hunting equipment like fishing poles, skis, snowboards and watercrafts. The problem can be a variety of things, but most boil down to improper design, improper manufacturing or improper use, with the latter being the most common. End users could be improperly altering the product or using it in a way it shouldn’t be used.

Even if we have cause down, the other two questions (improper design or manufacturing) must be investigated. Let’s say you have a failed bike because they road it off a cliff. While it was quite obviously misused, we need to look at the design and make sure it was designed and manufactured properly. Were there defects that contributed to the failure? Is the design robust enough? The manufacturer still has to be part of the discussion to show they are doing everything to prevent defects.

To subscribe to CM’s weekly Q&A, click here.

Composite leaders share tips on how they motivate employees. Pictured from top left to right: Wes Goulbourne, New Era Composites; Doug Caudle, Piedmont Fiberglass; Dan Jonsas, Ahlstrom Specialty Reinforcements; Chris Frigo, Forte Composites; Kevin Horne, V2 Composites; Jim Strike, Materials Innovation Technologies; Art Offringa, Fokker Aerospace

Wesley Goulbourne, President of New Era Composites

Initiatives and simple appreciation go a long way. I say that because before I was a president, I worked at a lot of companies where the whole upper management was too overwhelmed with the complicated business process. They acknowledge employees are there, but treat them like machines. Sure it’s complicated; I’m not downplaying that at all because I’m involved with it now on a personal level. This is my company, I see that more clearly. But you can’t expect employees to automatically feel that passion that you, as an owner or president, feel for the company. They could feel like that, but not unless you involve them in that process. Once a week we have a staff meeting where I let them know what’s going on in the business and we set weekly goals together. I give initiatives like if we can make a certain goal on Friday, then we’ll go out for drinks on Saturday or I’ll bring something in on Monday or sometimes I’ll get some t-shirts made up. I can’t offer these guys anything crazy, but they appreciate the little things. Little things really do count and as we get bigger, I want my incentives to get bigger too.

Doug Caudle, President of Piedmont Fiberglass

It is important to recruit your people every day. Companies are constantly thinking of ways to attract people, but not on what would make them want to stay. It is a manager’s responsibility to find what motivates his or her people. Motivation is a very individual thing. Constantly ask your employees, “What keeps you at a job? What do you want from this job? What do you want from your career?” Don’t be afraid of these conversations!

Dan Jonsas, VP and GM of Ahlstrom Specialty Reinforcement

We emphasize close communication, working together to reach company goals and proper employee training. But another thing we do, that I think keeps burnout low, is continual job rotation. It doesn’t give employees time to be complacent or feel redundant when they come to work.

Chris Frigo, President of Forte Composites

Motivation and priorities are a very individual thing. Employers always think it’s about the money. In employee surveys I’ve read, money is important, but it’s not what keeps people. Retention is highest when people feel valued and are given challenges. It is important to acknowledge someone’s contribution either personally or publicly. Say thank you. Yes it is their job, but it doesn’t mean they don’t want to hear it.

Kevin Horne, President of V2 Composites Inc.

I think motivating people is easier when your management style is open and honest. People need to be heard and to hear the truth from their leadership. It’s amazing how hard people work when they understand the mission—both the risks and the rewards. I make sure employees know how much work’s coming through; they see the operation sheets and other things that need to be done. They know how hard they have to push and they see the raw materials coming in. The biggest thing I do is just to tell them beforehand and make sure they know what’s coming up. Sharing information keeps surprises down and morale up. I also try to focus on communication with our key and core employees.

Jim Strike, President of Materials Innovation Technologies

My previous company was a leader in “high performance self-directed” work teams and I implemented this into Materials Innovation Technologies in the early 90s. Every single employee is cross-trained and is a team member. The teams are responsible for training and discipline issues within the group. There are no supervisors, only team leaders and process engineers who support the teams. Each person is held responsible for production, quality and costs (safety and 5-S housekeeping is a given). They know the metrics and targets monthly and there is daily tracking and monthly formal communications. They have a quarterly bonus plan where they are incentivized by meeting and exceeding these targets.

Arnt Offringa, Director of R&D at Fokker Aerospace

From an engineering or R&D standpoint, employees are kept motivated by a good manager that has a good working relationship with his employees and supports each employee. I would also add a good salary and other benefits, such as job growth opportunities. Growth opportunities include ever bigger and more complex projects, training opportunities and challenging work. If an employee is excited about their current project and/or technology development, they’re more likely to remain satisfied.

AWEA CEO Denise Bode shares her opinions on the growing wind energy market and the role composites can play.

Denise Bode is CEO of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). She is a nationally recognized energy policy expert and has more than 30 years experience in the energy field, including DEO of the American Clean Skies Foundation, President of the Independent Petroleum Association of America and a tax partner in a D.C.-based law firm. Bode shares her opinions on the growing wind energy market and the role composites can play.

How has the wind industry changed over the past few years?

The American wind industry has grown rapidly in the recent past and now provides about 85,000 American jobs. The data we have from AWEA members shows they have increased domestic manufacturing twelve-fold since 2004 and invested over $1 billion in U.S. wind manufacturing facilities in the last three years.

How do you see that percentage increasing further?

Over 50 percent of the 8,000 component parts of wind turbines used in the U.S. are manufactured in the U.S., up from 25 percent a few years ago. Our goal is to increase that percentage as quickly as possible by recruiting supply chain companies from across all over the world, to build manufacturing plants in the U.S. Passing a renewable electricity standard (RES) would help persuade those companies by creating demand for wind components.

What technology has given the wind energy market the biggest boost?

There have been a series of incremental improvements in an industry where a new generation of equipment comes along every few years. One of the smaller improvements with a big effect is taller towers. Another is variable speed drives on the turbines themselves.

What’s driving that adoption?

The adoption of taller towers is driven by the realization that greater energy-capture will more than make up for the extra cost.

What do you see as the next hot topic in wind energy?

We are working closely with members of Congress to address their concerns in wind energy and to find ways to create more American jobs. Enacting legislation such as a renewable electricity standard would provide the long-term commitment American companies need to justify investment in manufacturing facilities here in the U.S. This step alone would create more than 250,000 jobs in the next 15 years.

Where do you see the most potential for composite growth within wind energy?

Along with continuous improvement in making turbine blades bigger and lighter and replacing some nacelle components, composites could be used to make tall towers. The University of Dayton Research Institute (UDRI) has recently been awarded funding to design and test structures and materials for composite wind turbine towers up to 100 meters in height.

In your opinion what would help the composites industry expand its presence in the wind energy market?

The composite industry needs substantial R&D and commercialization funding to make the U.S. wind industry technologically and financially competitive for next-generation wind turbine designs.

How many turbines were installed in the U.S. and globally this year as compared to last year and what you expect for 2010?

The U.S. wind energy industry installed over 10,000 megawatts (MW) of new wind power generating capacity in 2009, the largest year in U.S. history, and enough to power the equivalent of 2.4 million homes or generate as much electricity as three large nuclear power plants.

How does the U.S. fare in its use of renewable energy compared to other countries?

In 2009, China passed the U.S. in new installations and in manufacturing of wind turbines. The U.S. still remains the largest market in cumulative capacity for the second year in a row but here again China is hard on our heels. If this isn’t the ‘case-closed’ evidence illustrating that America must have a stable renewable energy policy and hard targets in order to create jobs and revitalize our economy, I don’t know what is. China gets it, 37 other nations get it, and we still don’t. It is time to act now on a national RES so that America can immediately create manufacturing jobs and be the world wind power leader. The economy can’t wait, job creation can’t wait, and America can’t wait.

Is offshore energy viable? If so, when will it be a reality?

As of the end of 2009, ten countries have wind projects installed offshore providing clean, renewable electricity: Belgium, China, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. These projects account for 2072 MW total offshore wind installed and grid connected.

How does the U.S. compare?

Offshore wind power is gaining momentum in the U.S. Both the federal government and several states established significant milestones in 2009 to encourage offshore wind power development. In April 2010, Secretary Salazar announced the Record of Decision for the Cape Wind project proposed in Nantucket Sound. This final approval demonstrates that the U.S. is serious about deploying offshore wind and about competing in the global race for manufacturing jobs.

However, long term stable policies at the national level are also necessary to provide the certainty necessary for project financing and U.S. manufacturing growth.

How has AWEA evolved?

Formed in 1974 and based in Washington D.C., we promote wind energy as a clean source of electricity for consumers in the U.S. and around the world. Through Congressional outreach and education, AWEA supports policies aimed at generating investment in the U.S. economy, improving U.S. energy security, and slowing climate change, including extension of the federal production tax credit (PTC) for wind energy, establishment of a national renewable electricity standard (RES), support for efforts to strengthen and expand the U.S. electric transmission system, and more.

What would you like to see happen with renewable energy in the next five years?

We’d like to see a 25 percent renewable electricity by 2025 standard, with a near-term target such as the 10 percent by 2012, which is the objective called for in the Obama-Biden New Energy for America plan. We’d also like a long-term extension on the Renewable Energy Production Tax credit to ensure policy stability. Also, legislation to develop a high-voltage interstate transmission highway system for renewable energy.

To subscribe to CM’s weekly Q&A, click here.

Graham Harvey - General Manager: Marine, Gurit

Graham Harvey started as a structural engineer for Brown and Root. He became interested in composites and joined the marine industry 22 years ago. Looking ahead, he shares his views of the growth, and growing pains, composites have in store.

How have you seen the marine industry change in the last couple years?

Overall, there’s been tremendous reduction, especially in the last 18 months. There have also been a lot of changes in the way things are done technically with more people moving toward composites within the mainstream leisure market.

What are some growing trends?

I see more focus on health and safety activities, so lower styrene use along with more work in closed molding and vacuum bagging. We see a general trend of people discovering how they can industrialize their operations. Everyone wants to have lower prices and good quality, and they’re looking for production solutions to achieve that.

Have you seen much economic improvement in the marine industry recently?

People are reordering supplies and of course they want/need fast service in order to meet their own customer’s orders and stay competitive. At the moment, we’re cautiously optimistic.

How have you seen the composites industry evolve?

Composites used to be very esoteric, high-tech stuff. Now people are used to it. We’ve moved from the “unusual and rare” category to “very useful.” The way to move forward is to customize to meet people’s needs.

Within Gurit there are three main business units: marine, transportation and wind energy. Wind energy is a growing market with large customers and large volume orders. Within transportation we have aerospace and automotive, where customers like Aston Martin are using more composites steadily. The marine industry is fragmented. While still growing, it really only has one or two large companies, while the majority are reasonably small. On the automotive side, we actually make panels because the sector hasn’t had a composite manufacturer that can hit those quality requirements. But in marine we don’t because the need isn’t there.

What is the fastest growing market of the three?

Wind energy is the fastest growing market- it makes up 60 percent of our composite business. Turbine manufacturers are using composites extensively in blades and nacelles. The transportation industry is growing and we see it as a very long-term industry. Within transportation composites are used in aircraft interiors because of its fire retardant properties.

What are trends you see in marine materials purchased?

Each segment is so different. For example, in yachts competing in the America’s Cup, they want the ultimate in lightweight, a stiffness-driven carbon and nomex structure. They are after an edge, searching for the latest developments in materials technology with a track record of reliability. After all, if it’s the lightest but doesn’t complete the course it’s failed.

Within recreational boats, their requirements for materials are cost and rapid production techniques. In 2007-2008 it was, “how fast could I get through the process?” Now, manufacturers aren’t at capacity and cost is more critical than cycle time.

Where are you focusing your efforts in 2010?

There are a lot of 6- to 9-meter boats out there. They might not be core structures, but they’re built very simply, and our aim is to grow into that market. The latest solution we’ve come up with is our SmartPac, which is basically a boat in a box. Everything is cut, labeled, and stacked in the right order, allowing greater quality control checks.

What are characteristics of a successful manufacturing company?

Whether they supply composite materials, or manufacturing a car or boat, people need a constant drive to see how they can improve processes. Good companies are run tightly. Sure, there’s the buzz word “six sigma,” but when you go into a yard you can tell if it’s run well; it’s clean, organized, they know what/when/how and activities are measure and monitored.

What characteristics are unique to the marine industry?

The marine industry is not in most cases an industrial process. If you look across the automotive or wind turbine industries, the volumes of repeatability are higher than you see in marine. There are a few exceptions with skidoos and small watercraft, but the majority of manufacturers aren’t making hundreds of boats. Most are custom, which makes it more artisan and therefore repeatability is a struggle. You get good at things when you do it a lot—not to say boat manufacturers aren’t good boat builders—simply that the more times you do something, the faster and better you can do it.

What areas could composites increase its presence?

I think composites have the leisure boating market taken care of, but I see untapped potential in larger boats, super structures, reconditioning yachts that are steel hulled and military applications. It’s difficult to say there is one single thing to make people rush across to composites. It comes down to yards that are able to deal with composites materials and quoting them in an effective manner. I mean, if composites break into bigger boats, you then are dealing with steel fabrication yards that are used to building steel or aluminum crafts. They have the facilities to build big boats, but not the technical background to do it in composites, so the price can reflect their uncertainty.

What can the industry do to educate them?

I’m a great believer that we can provide education, but it is going to be the physical demand that causes them to come looking for solutions, such as weight savings. Manufacturers will look into ways to solve the problem and through education realize it’s not that difficult to do. However, it’s a learning curve, and people don’t want to be the first in the area until it’s worked its way up. People get used to the idea and want to see a track record that it’s been out there working successfully. It’s not like you flick your fingers and people come over; it’s steady education and proof by experience.

As a company, we try to push the barriers up from where we are. We’ve been working on the big super structures and find you start at the top, and as the years go by, people get used to it and more and more parts are made of composites. Yet, I also believe that composites aren’t for everything. Steel and aluminum have a good place in our lives and we can’t replace them in everything. They sit side by side.

What are you most looking forward to?

There’s a lot of innovation within the marine industry. A good thing about the industry is that usually the people in it are passionate, which is good because it’s not always an easy ride. A manufacturer must rely on the fact that it will fluctuate and keep moving forward. It’s definitely what’s kept me going for 20 years. And to know that what you can’t do now, in two to three years time technology will advance enough to allow you to do it. For example, years ago we started trying to get fire and toxicity ratings to enable us to enter the more commercial craft segment. We were not successful at the time, but we now have epoxy-based systems that mean structural properties and fire retardancy are incorporated together, rather than as additional paneling which adds weight and cost.. I’m looking forward to fire-retardant systems that are epoxy based and can therefore be built into the boat structure instead of having to add additional protection, which adds weight and cost.

To subscribe to CM’s weekly Q&A, click here.

Dirk Plas – President, BYK, USA

BYK makes additives for composite applications in the construction, transportation, automotive, recreation, and wind energy markets. Applications include wind blades, fiberglass tubs, boat hulls, automotive body panels, and duroskins for fiberglass doors. The additives are designed to improve the processing or air release in spray-up and lay-up manufacturing as well as the casting process (marble, solid surface). Dirk Plas, BYK-USA president, discusses his view of the composites industry.

What markets are you more focused on?

The area we’re most focused on is anything to do with energy savings, which includes “green” and wind energy. Many customers are working actively to replace existing raw materials with more sustainable materials. There’s a lot of money being invested there. There’s a very significant focus right now on developing alternative energy technologies. There’s a high demand for green products and more money going into that area. A lot of our customers need help in making these new materials work.

What challenges do your customers have?

When formulating with green products, there are challenges with regard to compatibility. Customers are always looking for ways to reduce scrap. Anytime you make a composite, you have an air release problem. Filler materials help make composites more cost competitive, and so do the wetting and dispersing additives. These additives reduce rollout time and filler increase.

Is the “green” movement here to stay?

I think so. Green doesn’t necessarily have to be expensive. Some industries will be slow to adopt, but ultimately it’s not a fad, and it’s not going away.

What is the state of the additives industry?

Like everyone else, we suffered a decline at the end of 2008 that continued through 2009. Things have started to improve; however, the market was already competitive but has become even more so. Everyone’s looking for new business, scrambling after stimulus dollars and looking for new areas. As a result, competitors are also moving into new areas. But we’re also doing the same thing. We’re not seeing a lot of consolidation, but rather more people coming into the market.

How has the market changed in the past decade?

The market for additives in composites isn’t an old market, so we’ve seen a lot of growth. New technologies are being developed and it’s still a growing market. Our company in particular started focusing on the composites industry about 20 years ago, and we began seeing strong market pickup.

Perhaps the biggest difference is that now, we get more demands or requests for composites that are highly flame-retardant because reduced emissions of the actual composite are a more important factor. In any industry, everything focuses on low VOCs. Personal safety for the workers, the people who work in manufacturing, is always important. Nanoadditives have also come on strongly in the last three to four years in the composites market. There have been a lot of government regulations, particularly in regard to styrene. ACMA has been an active voice in regard to styrene regulation.

How do you see the styrene issue playing out?

I speculate we have reached the minimum amount of styrene that we can work with. I don’t think those can go much lower. There are trends in development that are styrene-free, but I don’t think the government will push much for us to reduce styrene content. Styrene is an integral part of the polyester, which is responsible for cross-linking in chemical processes. It has over 50 years of historical use in these types of composites. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to take them out in the next few years. Alternatives to styrene do not offer same type of historical use or consistency in use. Partial replacements could occur in the near future, but we’re talking about a very long time to make a total replacement.

How will the composites industry change in the next five years?

I think lower densities and lighter weight composites will be a trend for all applications. Everyone’s always looking for stronger composites, so that will be a trend. Renewable resources will continue to grow. You’ll also see an increase in coupling agents that will increase the physical properties of composites. Nanoadditives will emerge more and more for certain applications such as antimicrobial tendencies.

In aviation, there’s a big push for carbon fiber. It’s a little bit of a fragmented, niche application market, so it’s hard for us to focus on that market. We want to though, because we believe it’s an area where composites is going to grow. Technology in aviation sometimes transfers to automotive, so we’ll see a trend in that direction.

From your viewpoint, how can composites grow?

There needs to be more applications away from steel, aluminum, and wood. The standard approach composites has had for years is converting applications, but there needs to be more of a focus on day-to-day growth. That approach has picked up in the construction market and has helped reinvigorate the infrastructure market. Those two areas have strong immediate and long-term growth opportunities.

What segments have been hit hardest?

The recreation market was down almost 80 percent in 2009. It has recouped a little bit since then, but it’ll be a long-term process to get back to where it used to be. A lot of baby boomers are coming onto the market, and they may be interested in RVs, so that might drive growth a bit. Concerning boats, manufacturers have had success with making boat hulls from composites. You can see a conversion to infusion-molding and vacuum bag from spray-up and lay-up. I think companies that make RV parts can diversify by integrating their parts into construction or fire-retardant panels.

To subscribe to CM’s weekly Q&A, click here.

Gordon Brown, President, Flexi-StiX LLC, on how his company is finding new niche markets for composites.

Gordon Brown is a veteran of the composites industry, having worked at Strongwell, Owens Corning and Hexcel. Now a consultant, he developed the process behind Flexi-StiX, an idea to take extruded PVC tubing and give it structural purposes. Though the product could be used in many potential markets, it is initially being targeted in the exercise sector as a workout tool.

Why did you focus on the exercise market?

When I was marketing director for Strongwell in the 1980s, we were approached by Universal Gym Equipment, a major manufacturer of athletic equipment. Through our discussions with them on composites, they became aware that bending a composite could stretch the fibers and resulted in resistance. They suggested that if we can make something with these properties safely, there’s a huge market for it. We came up with a product that was developed and marketed, but we took a pultruded shape, and ran it through an extruder and put a tight covering of thermoset rubber over it. That gave it a round shape, but there were concerns the fiberglass would splinter in people’s hands. They wanted something over the outside of the fiberglass to prevent that. The product and process was too expensive at the time, and only bent in two directions. So that project was abandoned.

How and why did you come back to that idea later on?

Even though I moved on to other opportunities, that idea never really left my mind. Five years ago, I saw a hollow piece of flexible PVC in a store one day, and I wondered what would happen if I put a pultruded piece of fiberglass down the center of that tube. In all of our thinking, no one ever thought to take an extruded thermoplastic tube and put fiberglass inside it. It was one of those a-ha moments. It ended up being an economical way to make a variable-resistant exercise device. It’s light weight, economical, and safer, and uses standard extruded thermoplastic which reins in any splintered material.

What questions do customers ask about the product?

I’ve had many discussions with people in the thermoplastic extrusion business. Most of them have a vague idea, but then when I say it’s a pultruded round shape, I have to explain what pultrusion is. There is no extruded thermoplastic with any continuous strands fiber such that you can make a reinforced extruded thermoplastic. All they know is thermoplastic resins. You have to explain the composite, and then you have to tell them that the modulus is such that under the same amount of force, carbon and glass will elongate less than thermoplastics, which also results in increased strength and rigidity.

How do you help them more fully understand composites?

I have to demonstrate the product for them. Most people don’t consider PVC pipes to be flexible, so I show them the process and put it in their hands. They bend the bar and are impressed with the bending stiffness. The variable resistance nature takes effect the more you bend it. You have to go back to basics with people, but they’re excited about learning.

Where else could the product be used?

This is great for exercise, but if you put a thicker piece of fiberglass inside, you can create a structural building component. For example, in temporary shelters, if you take a 20 foot piece of PVC tubing and you put a piece of fiberglass inside that’s maybe ¾-inch wide and ¼ inch thick, and you bend it into the ground, you can hang 200 pounds in the center of it and it’ll flex. If you bend one, and move 6 feet and bend another one, and you get a tarp that’s big enough to fit over the tubes, it looks like a dome structure offering a cost-effective way for basic shelter.

What key issues keep the composites industry from growing?

Any sort of progress takes a long time to make ground, even though many of us in the industry invest time to do things. It shouldn’t take 40 years of testing, materials development, educating engineers, and flight hours for aerospace companies to incorporate a majority of composites. I’ve been a member of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) committee for composites strengthening concrete. We just now have a complete set of specifications covering a broad range of composites for internal and external reinforcement of concrete. That took 15 years to finalize.

What areas have you seen growth potential for composites?

There’s no short answer to that. The best examples of composites usage occur when we take full advantage of the resin and the fiber, take it into the realm of structural and demand performance out of the composite. I will say that aerospace still has strong growth potential. We have a corps of design engineers who believe in composites. Whether it’s for the fuselage, carbon reinforced flaps, engine components or storage bins, it’s everywhere. When you put materials in a true performance wing, you’re sitting there and they flap back and forth, it’s noticeable.

What are industries slow to adopt composites?

Composites have had to answer the questions of each and every industry. There were no fiberglass boats at one point, and now there are many of them. A company called Gibbs and Cox published the first design guide for fiberglass boats, and they spent many years to develop data and give the industry the design information it took to make operations possible. However, we have to design processes and techniques specifically answering that industry. The golf industry could care less that the Dreamliner has the same materials, for example; you just have to answer their specific questions. Looking back, the industry would have been better off if we spent three times more on development. We would have gotten the job done 15 years earlier.

What was wrong with the way things were done?

The industry would decide on something to work on, complete it and go on to the next thing. Then we would get to the point where we work on two things at once. We could have reached this point faster by bringing more resources to bear at that particular time. However, companies are only willing to commit so much time and money on development. In retrospect, that’s the only way it could have been done faster.

How can the industry improve itself?

In terms of spec development, we’ve gotten faster in processing the paperwork that goes along. The electronic aspect has streamlined that, but the downside is there are fewer people working. People say we’ve been hearing this for years, but we’re at the point with composites where we have close to a complete set of design specs across an incredibly large marketplace. I happen to believe that we haven’t tapped an ultimate potential, but with all the data we have, if people don’t believe composites will meet their needs seeing something such as the Dreamliner, they have an aversion to technology. We need visionary leaders to generate data and make industries comfortable in using the products. To make composites move faster, you need to truly commit.

To subscribe to CM’s weekly Q&A, click here.

David Stewart, chief executive of Zoltek Automotive, speaks to CM Magazine on the growing use of composites.

David Stewart has been working in the automotive industry for over 20 years, taking technology out of labs and applying it to mass production environments. He owns a research firm, Stewart Automotive Research, and was just named chief executive of Zoltek Automotive, a new subsidiary from the carbon fiber supplier.

Zoltek’s CEO is quoted as saying carbon fiber is easier to use in wind energy than automotive. What makes automotive tougher to work with?

The volume requirements involve very different requirements on the manufacturing process. Cycle time is important, and the part geometry is substantially more complex. The chemistry of the curing process for thermosets needs to be tailored to the faster cycle time requirements. For preforming, getting the fibers into the appropriate alignment with the part geometry and structural requirements is a very different process for smaller parts with more curvature as compared to the structural parts in wind blades.

Why did Zoltek form this subsidiary?

The primary factor was renewed interest in automotive composites from the OEMs. Several OEMs have announced production programs where they’ll be delivering production vehicles that utilize lightweight carbon fiber materials. There are a few examples in production right now. In lower volumes, Tesla has carbon fiber body panels; in higher volumes, BMWs are being manufactured with carbon fiber structural and exterior body panel components. It has given some confidence to other OEMs that there’s a place for these materials in low-volume niche manufacturing and higher-volume production applications.

Which American OEMs are more likely to use composites?

That’s a tricky question. They all have equivalent incentives. I can’t comment on any of their individual development programs because of their proprietary requirements. I will say that GM and Ford have the development budgets that allow them to pursue these opportunities. It is worth noting that the latest wave of gasoline price increases and changes in the regulatory environment has led to that renewed interest among the OEMs in composites.

What are some of the biggest challenges OEMs have working with composites?

Composites are a challenge for material substitutions because the technology required to manufacture composites differs so much from the traditional materials they replace. The design and manufacturing infrastructure both change and that makes it challenging for existing capital industries to change over from one material to another. There’s such a huge investment in the existing way of doing things in the engineering, design, testing, quality control, etc.

Why hasn’t the automotive industry embraced carbon fiber more until now?

There’s a long lead time for developing these technologies for high-volume production. A number of efforts in the past have seen a three-year development cycle and a seven-year cycle for re-engineering an entire vehicle platform. Implementing substantial amounts of carbon fiber in the vehicle platform greatly impacts the engineering of the fundamental platform, painting process and crash analysis. Those changes need to be made up front in that development cycle.

Before moving a large amount of vehicle production to an alternative material, there’s a desire to have the material validated in a smaller-scale, less capital-intensive, less risky environment. A lower volume platform is selected initially, which is also a seven-year development cycle. You can get sufficient data to project the warranty costs and performance in an actual service environment. We’ve been through that cycle a few times, but every time when we have incentives from a fuel economy, the price of fuel has gone back down again. That volatility has never provided a sustained incentive to re-engineer vehicle architecture as well as maintaining the variable cost incentives to spend additional money on more expensive materials. Fuel prices need to be at a sustained projected level where the materials pay for themselves over the life of the vehicle.

Are we reaching that point, or will more instability follow?

After so many years, we finally have an increase in the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) requirements. There is now a hard target that North American manufacturers have to meet. That hasn’t happened since the 1980s. Most manufacturers are projecting the price of oil to remain above $60 a barrel for a sustained period of time going forward.

What difficulties will you face in starting the subsidiary?

We need to establish a solid relationship with a fairly new and changing supply base. Recent difficulties in the auto industry have put most of the Tier 1 suppliers through Chapter 7 or 11 bankruptcies. There are some financially strong suppliers that do composite materials, but it’s always been a fragmented industry with a large number of suppliers and contracts for a fairly small volume of components. The OEMs and Tier 1s started to re-evaluate their relationship and the applications appropriate for the structural composite materials. We need to re-evaluate what that supply chain looks like and what support they’ll need.

What do manufacturers need to get involved in that re-evaluation?

The manufacturers with the largest ability to respond to new demand are those with the greatest investment in capability and design testing and manufacturing process equipment. So it requires a substantial investment. There’s not a lot of existing capacity out there that is drop-in and ready for a significant shift toward lightweight composites.

What does Zoltek see as the future of carbon fiber in medium to large production automotive parts?

We are most interested in structural components that lend themselves to high-volume manufacturing, compression molding and injection molding. We stay away from components that are painted because of the difficulties in reconciling the painting process with different manufacturing processes. We’re utilizing our material in this fashion, but we think it will remain a niche market from a volume sales standpoint, and by far the largest tonnage of carbon fiber is with the structural and underhood components such as drive shafts, chassis, pillar, brass beams, bumper beams, intake manifold and oil pans.

What production processes will the subsidiary incorporate?

We’re working with our customer base on all volume-capable carbon fiber manufacturing processes. These include preforming, resin transfer molding, compression molding for thermosets and thermoplastics, thermoplastic compounding for short and long fiber reinforced molding compounds, filament winding. If a process doesn’t have an established history, the development cycle for implementation into a high-volume vehicle platform is quite long. We’re focusing most of our efforts around established processes incorporating fiberglass, analogs or filament winding.

How can the industry improve its recycling of carbon fiber to improve its “green” aspect?

There are different ways for evaluating this aspect of end use requirements. It varies from one OEM to another. In Europe, you must identify exactly how this material will be recovered at its end of life. It’s a different question for thermosets and thermoplastics, and we’re working with companies who are developing techniques to reclaim carbon fiber at its end of life and recycle it either as short fiber or milled fiber materials. Over the course of the life of the material, the weight savings more than offsets its cost to produce and cost for end of life recycling.

To subscribe to CM’s weekly Q&A, click here.

Zvi Yaniv – President/CEO of Applied Nanotech Holdings, gives his take on the expanding composites industry.

Applied Nanotech Holdings is a research and commercialization that has developed a process involving multi-walled carbon nanotubes (CNTs) which it says could help products increase their mechanical properties even while weighing less.

How does your firm fit into the composites industry?

We learned how to handle blocks of CNTs and put them together to make a material whose properties are tailored in what we call assembling processes in three dimensions. Afterward, we worked more towards commercialization, so we developed a new material that has a specific application to large-volume applications. This is accomplished with nanocomposites using CNTs to enhance certain qualities of carbon fiber reinforced polymers (CFRPs) or glass fiber reinforced polymers (GFRPs).

What was your first market?

We first worked in sporting goods applications to make products stronger and lighter. We discovered that you can integrate enough CNTs to make up only 1 to 2 percent of the product yet still create improvements in mechanical properties. We understood that CNTs must be dispersed and functionalized individually in order to spread well into an epoxy matrix such that when force is applied on the final product, a part of the stress is transferred to the CNT.

That was our first success. Since then, we’ve licensed the technology, at least territorially, to a large sporting goods company. We’ll receive royalties and now we’re assembling it for other applications from construction to defense.

Why did you target sporting goods initially?

Even if we had a good idea, we couldn’t implement it if we didn’t have an identified strategic partner with an issue we could solve. It also had to be a sector with a large market potential, which happened to be sporting goods. Now, we are approached by companies for bridge materials and aerospace.

What opportunities exist in those markets?

Within all of these industries, they want to use less weight, less gas, and they’re looking for portable and flexible applications. In the aerospace industry, the new Dreamliner is an example of a shift toward using more composites; the car industry is moving along that path as well.

What challenges have you encountered working with manufacturers?

Companies are worried about their commercial success, and as a result, sometimes don’t give us all the data we need to understand what to do for them for fear of sharing proprietary information. So if the CNTs are not functionalized properly, or the penetration of the epoxy enhanced into the fiber is not proper, the final material will have visible defects and no mechanical enhancement. Good communication is essential when working with another party.

What composite parts could incorporate CNTs that don’t currently?

One of the markets I see developing lighter and stronger composites is wind energy. Current blades are made with old technology and are very heavy. If you don’t have a very strong wind, you lose a lot of background energy. So, we are currently discussing CNT options with some companies. Cost is always a huge factor, but you have to look at overall costs. If I can obtain 20 percent more energy from my turbine, then the blade will perform better even though it costs a little more.

Is cost a common concern in other markets?

Cost is always a serious concern. Even in sporting goods, if cost is prohibitive it doesn’t matter how much lighter a product is because widespread adoption will not happen. This is one of the reasons people must carefully look at what kind of nanotube they use. In the past, the biggest players in enhanced composites used single-wall nanotubes and they achieve some great results, but the cost was too prohibitive. But now, the price for functionalized CNTs is dropping considerably, so we chose to focus on multi-wall CNTs.

To subscribe to CM’s weekly Q&A, click here.

NMMA's John McKnight talks about the future of the marine industry and the role of composites in it.

John McKnight has worked for the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) for 16 years, where he’s responsible for tracking environment, health, and safety regulations and regulatory compliance issues. Prior to joining NMMA, he was environmental engineer at Witco Chemical Corporation.

What are the various marine manufacturing segments?

We break the industry down into three separate segments: engines, vessels and accessories. There are four different types of engines used depending on the type of vessel. Accessories include anchors, tubs and showers, which can be cultured marble or fiberglass products. The vessel, or boat segment, is where composites really fit in. The vessels could be pontoons, cruisers (a joy ride, comfortable vessel), speed boats (built for things like water skiing to 100 mph races) and yachts.

What trends do you notice between carbon and fiberglass composites?

Right now, I see the majority of the industry continuing to use fiberglass over carbon composites because it offers high quality and you can get it for lower cost. However, when you look at racing boats, people will look at carbon because weight is the biggest factor. But when looking at the general boat manufacturing industry that sells to families or fishermen, the most economical solution is still fiberglass.

Is there one segment of the marine industry that uses composites more?

Well, pontoons are usually made from aluminum, and you’ll find a mix among small fishing boats, but personal watercrafts such as cruisers and yachts are primarily fiberglass. You may find two or three manufacturers who use aluminum, but by and large, composites are the material of choice.

Where do you see the most potential for composites?

From a business point of view, we are seeing consolidation, but it’s not a strategy on composites. One thing companies can do when they slow down, which our industry has done, is go back and focus on improving the production line. Some manufacturers are looking into adapting robotics into the process for things like gel coating to allow better control. We’ve also seen manufacturers dabble into various epoxies to get away from unsaturated polyester resins or styrene, but the cost is higher than the return. Thus, we’re all following the future of styrene carefully. An inability to use styrene will change the game quickly.

What advice would you give to a composites manufacturer trying to break into the marine industry?

I would first caution them that they need to do research to see where opportunities are. Someone would have to have a good network and a product that is so unique to reach the market segment because there is already a lot of capacity, and boating is one of the first to go during a recession and last to come out. We’ve seen the work force cut by 60 to 80 percent, and that doesn’t include supporting industries.

From a chemical industry standpoint, I would suggest start looking for alternatives to styrene and ways to get styrene out of unsaturated polyester resins because that’s where opportunities really lie. It’s not going to get any better regulatory-wise and we need a new generation of resins that will meet the demands that the government will put on us as manufacturers. If I was making resin and could make one that used a monomer that’s not a HAP (hazardous air pollutant) and maintains the same quality, I’d make a fortune. We hear tidbits of information that things are being developed, but nothing has come through yet.

What are reasons manufacturers choose other materials over composites?

Primarily for cost. There are certain product lines like a pontoon or small fishing boat where a manufacturer can make an inexpensive, rugged product that consumers are looking for. In these instances a metal boat that can handle repeated scraps and nicks on a fishing trip, as well as being inexpensive, is appealing. Still, fiberglass is the primary material used for recreational boats because it provides the best quality for the price.

Do you think there is room or a need for more education within the industry?

Through various associations and chemical companies, a broad range of composite education tools are available. There are many suppliers who offer in-house training for companies so they can keep abreast with new processes or materials. The thing about the recreational boating industry is, we don’t get into high-end composites like aerospace, and we’re using general purpose resins. Many of our members are small and don’t have resources to delve into the science of composites like in large companies and some may not even have an engineering degree. If there is something either product or process-wise that would help manufacturers cut costs and improve products, then there is still room for education.

How have composites helped the industry?

There would be no modern boat industry without composites or styrene. You can build a boat out of aluminum, but it doesn’t have the same type of quality finish that composites allow. Composites give a different look and finish that consumer are looking for. For example, I know a few companies that exist because composites allow them to do high volume, high production manufacturing. If composites disappeared due to styrene or other regulatory issues, we’d go back to wood or aluminum and I’m not sure how that would turn out. On that issue, NMMA and ACMA share the same concern.

What do you view as the most innovative product/process in marine manufacturing within recent years?

The biggest improvement has come from emissions on the engine side, but composite-wise, closed molding has been the most innovative. I’d also mention other worker safety improvements that have evolved. If you walked into a boat plant 20 years ago, you’d see a very different scenario than today’s plants due to things like closed molding, improved resins, gel coats and ventilation.

How was the industry affected by the recession, and how do things look for 2010?

We were obviously hard hit and it may be a bit too early to tell, but we see improvement from last year. Things seem to be getting better, but the question on everyone’s mind is: is it a blip? Companies had completely shut down because there were no orders at all. For our industry, it wasn’t a recession, it was a depression. In some sectors it was down as much as 80 percent; a lot of people were let go and that’s not including the supporting industries. As we look at this year, companies are now running but at reduced capacity.

What are the main goals of your association in terms of helping manufacturers succeed?

We are involved in a lot of things, from government regulations to trade shows. A couple of things people may not realize we do are lobby for things like marinas and water safety so that people will have clean, safe places to go use our products.

How are manufacturers staying competitive?

Through reduced cost. We compete for discretionary income as people try to make choices between better TV sets, an indoor game, an RV, a snowmobile etc. There are so many things they want, but they’re not necessities. So, companies try to make it more affordable and accessible by reducing cost—therefore always seeking ways to reduce waste and improve output.

To subscribe to CM’s weekly Q&A, click here.

John Hillman – President, HC Bridge Company

John Hillman developed the hybrid-composite beam (HCB), a bridge beam using a combination of fiberglass, steel and concrete. Eventually, he formed the HC Bridge Company with the purpose of commercializing this new technology. He was recently named 2010 Innovator of the Year by Engineering News-Record.

How did you develop the HCB?

I initiated the project back in 1996. The first experimental testing we did was facilitated through a Transportation Research Board high speed rail idea program, for ideas implementing exploratory analysis. We started with a type 1 grant, where we fabricated the first beam, did the analytical studies, and figured out how to build one and test it. That first phase of research was done with the University of Delaware as our subcontractor and co-investigator. Based on the success of phase one, we received a type 2 grant to look at developing a commercially-viable, cost-efficient manufacturing process. That culminated with lab testing of beams and deployment of the first bridge on a live railroad track in 2007.

How are the beams fabricated?

We use a closed-mold process. We infuse the tension reinforcing, which is usually a steel tie, in with the fiberglass shell, and that encompasses the main component of the beam. As part of that reinforcing, we fabricate in the hollow conduit, where we later inject the compression reinforcement, which is typically concrete.

What challenges did you face designing and engineering the product?

From a manufacturing standpoint, the challenge was manufacturing a part of that size and complexity with fairly inexpensive processes in terms of tooling and labor and infusion process. It turned out to be a lot more challenging than we anticipated. It was certainly more difficult than validating the structural performance, which seemed to work out quite well.

The other big challenge was resistance to a new product. Anytime you try to introduce a new technology, especially in a more conservative industry, is just satisfying the questions and concerns that particular industry has in deploying a new technology. You need to make them feel that by using these beams, they’re not compromising the quality of the structures they’re building.

Were those concerns widespread?

Absolutely, and they always will be due to the nature of what we do. In civil engineering especially, our first and foremost obligation is to public safety. Thus, there are not a lot of incentives to take risks because there really is no tolerance for failure. From my standpoint, I have to be 100 percent confident that whatever we’re designing and implementing is going to be safe.

What convinces them to try something new?

Time, for lack of a better term. You need to do the lab testing, as well as provide a lot of transparency and limit states used to design the technology. That verifies to people that the product is based on sound engineering principles.

In the railroad project, what circumstances led to the embracement of the HCB?

More than anything, it was collectively the result of a few key people in the railroad industry that were willing to keep an open mind. We developed a relationship of trust with them through addressing their concerns. However, it didn’t happen overnight. We had the girders fabricated, tested and validated well before getting approval to put it on the test track. Through that process, I met with key railroad industry individuals every year for 4 to 5 years. In that time, we answered questions they had about the behavior of the material to get them comfortable with the fact that this is a viable technology. We were too stubborn to go away.

How does the HCB beam differ from other composite beams?

The composite people might not like to hear this, but I always emphasize the fact that this is not a plastic structural member—it’s a hybrid member. In regards to bending limit states, 95 percent of the strength and stiffness comes from concrete and steel. Fiberglass still serves as an extremely important function. It is a means of placing the concrete and anchoring the tension reinforcement, but it also transfers the shear loads and provides the corrosion barrier necessary to give the structure longevity.

Can fiberglass be a primary option for beams?

I think you have to think of things a little differently. There’s always a tendency when we’re focused on one aspect of an industry to think there’s only one solution. A lot of the great advances in technology are facilitated by cross-pollination between two industries. For example, concrete was a worthless building material 150 years ago. Then, it was discovered that you could put mild steel in the concrete and control the tension stresses that you could have a versatile material. I view composites in the same way: they have tremendous properties, but not the perfect properties for everything we need to do. Marrying that with conventional materials can compensate for the deficiencies of FRP and exploit its good characteristics.

How does the market look for composites in bridges and infrastructure?

For almost any material, the market is challenging. We’re faced with soaring deficits and reluctance by congressional leaders to address the funding issues necessary to put out large capital programs for transportation. Everyone’s going to be scrambling for whatever money’s available. However, everyone does recognize the deteriorating state of our transportation industry warrants a large amount of funding to bring it to where it needs to be.

The future of transportation will be good, and the opportunity has never been better for composites. There is an emphasis from the industry and the current administration to recognize that it is more responsible and to focus on sustainability. We’re seeing that now. The existing national highway system coincided with baby boomers; it’s 40 to 50 years old, and was built with then-current technology, but is now reaching the end of its service life. A lot of the rate of construction will reach that critical point at the same time. It wasn’t a linear development of the system. We need to be a little more responsible than just putting band-aids out or fixing with the least-cost solution. That’s where composites have a tremendous opportunity. Although the commodity prices of composites are more expensive, they offer a better value, and people are becoming more cognizant of that.

What will be an effective commercialization strategy?

The commercialization strategy for anyone is a triumvirate. You have to entice the owners to convince them of the technology. You have to gain trust of the design engineers who will impact the end product. Finally, you have to gain the confidence of the contractors that it’s a viable technology to make their lives easier. Our strategy is to reach out to all three of those facets simultaneously and build a level of trust and confidence that this is a product that will change the future of an industry.

It’s difficult as a new company to penetrate a conservative industry with a new technology like this. It’s going to take time, and the time is more important than the money. A general rule of thumb states that it takes 18 years for a new technology to make it in the transportation sector. I can validate that, because we’ve been working on this for 14 years. If we had deep pockets and could throw $10 million to 20 million into the product, adoption probably wouldn’t have happened any faster. I think the industry is beginning to embrace this technology and that we’ve gained their trust. As demand increases, we can scale up our capacity.

What knowledge do you need in order to sell to the infrastructure market?

A technical sales force is a necessity. Representatives need to be well-versed, if not already practicing structural engineers. That’s the experience the owners and designers want to see to maintain confidence and trust in what we’re promoting. You can’t just send someone out the door with brochures and glossy pictures. They’ll ask you a lot of technical questions and if you can’t talk the talk, you won’t sell anything.

What kinds of questions should a salesperson expect to hear?

You need to know what loads are applied to the structures, what critical limit states need to be satisfied, construction methodologies and details, longevity, performance due to fatigue loadings, general material properties. Those are the main things. They’ll want to know how it performs relative to what they’re using now. If you don’t understand what they have now, you can’t sell them the future.

What equipment or knowledge is needed to manufacture products for the infrastructure market?

One of the things that still fascinates me is that there are highly-scientific elements that are precise but there are some that are still an art. The key to developing new products is putting a strong emphasis on both art and science. Closed molding is a unique animal and it requires not only having the right equipment, but also the right people that have been in the trenches. There are a lot of nuances to manufacturing a quality part that are not evident from other aspects. It’s not rocket science, though. Other companies should look toward keeping an open mind to these crossover technologies and how you can modify those processes to make products that have value.

Which elements are scientific, and which are artistic?

The scientific parts are the precision of cutting and manufacturing pre-forms, vacuum systems, development of the materials, and engineering resins for specific applications. The artistic side is understanding in a complex composite how the manufacturing process will be influenced by the positioning of the infusion, vacuum, lay up and the transfer mediums, and knowing where to put things so the product comes out as a quality part. It’s not a terribly complex composite, but there aren’t computer models that give you the obvious answer as to how to do an infusion. You have to roll up your sleeves and figure it out.

Is there one aspect manufacturers have a harder time grasping?

If you’re building boat hulls, every one of them is exactly the same. Once you figure out the scientific process of doing that infusion, it becomes very cookie cutter. The companies that will excel will develop a process, but may need a completely different process when they switch to another type of product. It’s like knowing how to make cookies, but being able to make different kinds of cookies. To me, you have to have the artistic vision first and the science will follow.

To subscribe to CM’s weekly Q&A, click here.