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.

The top story in August comes in the form of a Q&A with Zoltek Automotive’s CEO David Stewart.  In the Q&A, Steward discusses which automakers are most likely to use composites, why it’s easier to use composites in wind energy and why automotive OEMs haven’t embraced composites until now.

Two other popular stories are Finding the Right Composite Retrofit and Composite Utility Pole Committee Woos Electric Co-ops.

To subscribe to CM online, click “subscribe” on the top left of your screen.

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.

Cal-EPA has proposed to regulate styrene as a carcinogen. ACMA contends that the proposal is the result of a partial and biased review of the available data: Both the European Union and an international “blue ribbon” expert panel recently reviewed extensive styrene health data and determined that styrene is not likely to cause cancer in humans.

During the event, visits were made to 35 California State Senators and Assemblypersons in an effort to educate and advocate support on the styrene issue. Participants asked their representatives to support reform by the Governor’s office of the Cal-EPA process for assessing chemical health hazards.

After what he considers a round of successful visits, ACMA’s John Schweitzer, senior director of government affairs, said that, “the industry is moving to further educate the legislative offices that were part of the visits, and ACMA is working with them to develop a legislative strategy. As the strategy is implemented, industry members will be asked to again contact their legislators.”

Applications such as this bio-fiber door will help composites in lightweight applications to meet new fuel economy standards.

In April, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly established new federal rules that set the first-ever national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States. The rules, which will significantly increase the fuel economy of the vehicles starting with the 2012 model year, will conserve about 1.8 billion barrels of oil, and reduce nearly a billion tons of GHG emissions over the lives of the vehicles covered and give lightweighting composites an opportunity to shine.

The final rules, issued by DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and EPA, establish increasingly stringent fuel economy standards under NHTSA’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy program and GHG emission standards under the Clean Air Act for vehicles produced in model years 2012 through 2016.

Starting with 2012 model year vehicles, the rules require automakers to improve fleet-wide fuel economy and reduce fleet-wide GHG emissions by approximately five percent every year. NHTSA has established fuel economy standards that strengthen each year, reaching an estimated 34.1 miles per gallon by 2016.

So what exactly does this mean for composites? A greater focus on fuel economy brings lightweighting to the forefront. With an oft-cited advantage of composites being a lighter alternative to substances such as metal, it only seems natural that composites emerge as a prime option to meet this directive.

John Schweitzer, senior director of government affairs for the American Composites Manufacturers Association (ACMA) says there’s a vehicle technology program at DOE that has a list of technologies for applications like hybrid engines and alternative fuel vehicles. “The problem is, it skips over glass composite materials and goes on to things like carbon nanotubes, lignum and magnesium. I think composites should be in that mix, but they’re not, even though they can offer a significant improvement in fuel economy through weight reduction.”

However, Jim deVries, manager of the manufacturing research department at Ford Research Laboratories, says conventional composites alone may not be enough. “Glass composites do not achieve the weight savings created in aluminum and magnesium, so I think the composites industry must look towards alternative reinforcements, ways to make conventional composites more lightweight.”

Which Fibers Win Out?

Carbon fiber represents a more commonplace solution to the lightweighting issue. “We see more emphasis on carbon fiber,” says Hamid Kia, group manager for polymer composites at General Motors. “The dollar-per-pound saved related to mass savings is going up because companies are more willing to pay more up front.”

The problem is that the material has always been too expensive. “Carbon fiber may be the next big composite material for the automotive industries, but for that to occur, the price of carbon fiber has to go down,” says deVries.

Natural fibers such as flax and hemp could play a larger role in achieving these standards, and composites are fully capable of being involved. “The need for renewable sources has been driving more emphasis on natural fiber and developing composites,” says Kia.

“This material is strong in its natural form and is rapidly renewing. It plays right into the green initiative that’s emerging,” says Mark Townsley, ground transportation engineer at the Composites Innovation Centre (CIC) in Winnipeg, Canada. CIC has an internal program of commercializing hemp bio-fibers, and the institution is hard at work on developing parts to meet this need.

Last December, CIC started work on a natural fiber battery door for a J4500 motor coach. Townsley, had worked at Motor coach Industries for over a decade and worked with them on manufacturing the product using a typical sandwich construction in a light RTM mold.

As one might expect with an emerging building material, there were challenges. “In the first tests, the permeability wasn’t as good as we wanted,” says Townsley. “We did mechanical and flex sandwich testing of the pure hemp material and found it wasn’t great when compared to glass. We went back and combined some glass fiber with it and managed to get some good parts using that technique, so we used the hybrid lay-up for the door.”

So far, the bio-materials are slightly heavier than fiberglass (about two percent). The material itself is lighter, but becomes heavier because it tends to soak up resin. “As we design the mats to become more permeable in the closed molding form, we hope to tailor it to weigh less than glass,” says Townsley.

Thanks in part to Townsley’s past employment, CIC has good connections with all local ground transportation manufacturers. “Transportation companies are keen on using the green products. It’s more important to people than many realize. It didn’t take much convincing to actually try them. Everybody’s game to try new things,” he says.

Of course, anyone can try something, but real-world adoption is a different matter. “There can be a lot of excitement generated in bio-based materials but in doing so, there is a lot of work that needs to be done to make these compatible with the automotive environment, whether it is humidity or heat or so forth,” says deVries.

For its part, CIC is also concerned about cost as they attempt to commercialize natural fibers on a global scale. “If it doesn’t compete price-wise to existing materials, we have to make sure it does,” says Townsley. “We’re very cognizant of what we have to do. Our stuff is being done on prototype lines and experimental lines, so it is more expensive now. These are low-quality experimental runs right now, but I have every confidence that they’ll cost less, especially with the rise of fuel costs to process existing materials. Those and transportation costs will factor into the lower costs.”

Projects like CIC’s bus cover are just the first step on the auto industry’s path to achieve better fuel economy. Lightweighting is a straightforward method in accomplishing that goal, and composites companies may do well to jump on the idea now and connect their product with that concept.

Scott Lewit won an SBA Award after his company suffered setbacks in the aftermath of 2008's Tropical Storm Fay

President Scott Lewit of Florida-based Compsys, a manufacturer of composite performs, received the U.S. Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 2010 Perseverance Award. According to the SBA, Lewit won the award for his dedication, drive and determination to help Compsys recover from damages of Tropical Storm Fay. During the summer of 2008, Compsys was flooded by the storm and all the company’s equipment, materials and tools damaged under water. Lewit not only stepped in to process the loan papers (something he notes as being very intensive) but also deferred personal pay for a year in order to help the company recover and volunteered to work extra hours and weekend.

Lewit states, “We received great letters from key customers such as Lockheed Martin, Regal, Grady White and Sea Ray for how we handled the problem. From there the SBA nominated and approached us about the award. That means a lot to me because the flood hit us at a bad time, since it coincided with tough economic conditions and a sharp decrease in lending from the banks.”

In reality, Lewit credits the SBA for the company’s ability to get back on its feet. “The SBA disaster relief funding provided the capital we needed—low interest rate loans, not grants—to recover from damages,” he says. “This award really belongs to the hard working folks at the SBA. They are responsive, professional and dedicated to helping companies like ours recover from disasters.”

Yet he also uses the opportunity to highlight and encourage reform in lending regulatory requirements. “Our loan was a direct SBA loan because it was a disaster relief loan,” he says. “Banks issue SBA backed loans that are now guaranteed by the SBA for 90 percent. But even with this, many businesses are finding that SBA lenders are unable to extend loans due to lending guidelines. In other words, banks want to help but are burdened by regulatory requirements such as cash flow and debt/worth. Further, many bankers comment that if these loans were to be funded directly by the SBA as opposed to funded by a bank, that it would create liquidity in the banking system because that money would go into the deposit account of a company. So, I respectfully request the House and Senate to seriously consider direct SBA loans to small business.”

Optimistic that reform is possible, the SBA Office of Advocacy released a study examining the type of credit utilized by small business. Bank Credit, Trade Credit or No Credit: Evidence from the Surveys of Small Business Finances, by Rebel A. Cole, compares firms that use credit (leveraged) with those that do not (unleveraged). The study also looks at which kind of credit leveraged firms’ use–bank credit (loans or lines of credit) trade credit (from suppliers) or both. The study found that the two types of credit (bank credit and trade credit) used by small firms are complements, with many small firms using both types of credit simultaneously.

“Access to credit is one of the most important issues facing small business today” said Acting Chief Counsel for Advocacy Susan Walthall. “A study that provides a better understanding of the credit used by small business is invaluable to policymakers, small business and their suppliers.”

ACMA encourages people to get involved. “Go to the blog or the wiki page and click the “comments” tab to join the conversation,” says Schweitzer. “It would be great to get input from members of the composites industry on the importance of these issues. If we’re missing anything, suggestions and ways to manage the issues are always welcome.”

To view the reference chart, visit ACMA’s regulatory webpage.

If job creation is the next phase of economic recovery, the renewable energy industry is doing its part. Vestas announced it will hire more than 1,000 people at three Colorado-based turbine manufacturing plants after receiving a surge of orders. Daewoo finalized an agreement with the government of Nova Scotia, Canada to build a wind turbine plant, creating 120 jobs within the first year and up to 500 in the next three. Meanwhile, support for ‘green’ initiatives from governments and industry continues to grow. State lawmakers in Massachusetts moved ahead with a bill that would make it easier for wind projects to receive permits and overcome opposition, while GE issued a call for entries in a 10-week contest to speed global power-grid upgrades, promising investment and marketing help for the best submissions, to the tune of $200 million. Also, the Sierra Nevada Corporation provided $1 million to the University of Nevada, Reno for research into a transportable, renewable energy generating system. The project will bring together the mechanical, thermal, electrical, chemical and advanced composites departments within the university. However, reaching renewable energy goals is still a distant future for some: With six months left to hit their target, California utilities struggle to meet mandated renewable-power requirements.

Boeing grabbed most headlines in this week’s aerospace news. The new 787 aircraft made its European debut on Monday at the UK-based Farnborough International Airshow, and the F-15 Silent Eagle demonstrator made its first flight, used to validate the initial engineering design approach. The company forecasts a $3.6 trillion market for new commercial airplanes over the next 20 years.

In marine news, U.S. Navy vessel manufacturer Northrop Grumman is considering a sale or spinoff of its shipbuilding unit; but will take several quarters to make a decision. UK-based Composite Mouldings is now manufacturing pram dinghies made entirely of surplus materials, thus preventing large amounts of waste within the yard.

Carbon fiber applications continue to find acceptance in the automotive and motor sports market. Lamborghini opened an Advanced Composites Research Center (ACRC) in the brand’s hometown of Sant’Agata Bolognese. The facility will research cutting-edge carbon fiber production and design processes. The Indy Racing League announced it will stick with current chassis-builder Dallara for the next generation of lighter-weight, all-carbon fiber chassis. Tesla Motors announced it will soon tour its pure-electric, hand-build carbon fiber Roadster. And after a fatal accident in Seattle last week, the NHRA announced that carbon fiber brake rotors and pads will be a mandatory part on Top Fuel dragsters and cars by August 11, 2010.

In other news, West Virginia University Professor Barbero, of mechanical and aerospace engineering, recently completed a second edition of “Introduction to Composite Materials Design”, aimed at undergraduate students and practicing engineers. Core-composites supplier Tricel Honeycomb announced Sue Mesmer as its new customer service manager.

According to the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA), there are key issues on the minds of marine manufactures in 2010

According to the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA), there are key issues on the minds of marine manufactures in 2010; namely, economic stability and regulatory issues.

“We were obviously hard hit last year,” explains John McKnight, director of environmental and safety compliance and director of government relations for NMMA. “Last year, a large percentage of companies 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, the marine industry was down as much as 80 percent; many people were let go and, according to NMMA statistics, that’s not including the supporting industries. “As we look at this year, companies are now running but at reduced capacity. However, they’re seeing a silver lining. It may be a bit too early to tell, but we see improvement from last year,” says McKnight. “Things seem to be getting better, but the question on everyone’s mind is: is it just a blip?”

Regulatory issues are also of grave concern to the industry, mainly because they can drastically impact the industry. “There would be no modern boat industry without composites and therefore styrene,” says McKnight. “You can build a boat out of aluminum, but it doesn’t have the same type of quality finish that these composites allow. Composites give a different look and finish that consumer are looking for. For example, I know a few companies that exist because styrene allows them to do high volume, high production composite 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 the American Composites Manufacturers Association share the same concern and we continue to watch very closely the advocacy efforts related to the EPA’s suggestion to label styrene as a reasonably anticipated carcinogen.”

Yet despite these looming clouds, marine manufacturers are moving ahead in their developments and use of composites. “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,” says McKnight. “Companies try to make it more affordable and accessible by reducing cost—therefore always seeking ways to reduce waste and improve output. As a result, we see the majority of the industry continuing to use fiberglass—even over carbon composites—because it offers high quality at lower cost to families and fishermen. Customers feel, except in cases like the aluminum pontoon boat, it’s the most economical solution.”

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.