Advanced Materials by Design (June 1988)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Advanced Materials by Design June 1988 NTIS order #PB88-243548 Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Advanced Materials by Design, OTA- E-351 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1988). Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 87-619860 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325 (order form can be found in the back of this report) Foreword This assessment responds to a joint request from the House Committee on Sci- ence, Space, and Technology and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to analyze the military and commercial opportunities presented by new structural materials technologies, and to outline the Federal policy objectives that are consistent with those opportunities. New structural materials–ceramics, polymers, metals, or hybrid materials derived from these, called composites–open a promising avenue to renewed international com- petitiveness of U.S. manufacturing industries. There will be many opportunities for use of the materials in aerospace, automotive, industrial, medical, and construction appli- cations in the next 25 years. This assessment addresses the impact of advanced struc- tural materials on the competitiveness of the U.S. manufacturing sector, and offers policy options for accelerating the commercial utilization of the materials. in recent years, several excellent studies have been published on both ceramics and polymer matrix composites. This assessment draws on this body of work and presents a broad picture of where these technologies stand today and where they are likely to go in the future. OTA appreciates the assistance provided by the contractors, advisory panel, and workshop participants, as well as the many reviewers whose com- ments helped to ensure the accuracy of the report. Advanced Materials by Design Advisory Panel Rodney W. Nichols, Chairman Executive Vice President, The Rockefeller University J. Michael Bowman Joseph Panzarino Director, Composites Venture Director E. I. du Pent de Nemours & Co. R&D of High Performance Ceramics Norton Co. Robert Buffenbarger Chairman, Bargaining Committee Dennis W. Readey International Association of Machinists Chairman Ceramics Engineering Department Joel Clark Ohio State University Associate Professor of Materials Systems Massachusetts Institute of Technology B. Waker Rosen President Laimonis Embrekts Materials Sciences Corp. Consultant Dix Hills, NY Amy L. Walton Member, Technical Staff Samuel Goldberg Jet Propulsion Laboratory President, INCO-US, Inc. New York, NY Alvin S. Weinstein Consultant Sheldon Lambert Concord, NH Consultant Piano, TX Dick J. Wilkins Director James W. Mar Center for Composite Materials Professor University of Delaware Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics Massachusetts Institute of Technology Arthur F. McLean Manager, Ceramics Research Ford Motor Co. NOTE: OTA appreciates the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members. The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this assessment. OTA assumes full responsibility for the assessment and the accuracy of its contents. iv OTA Project Staff for Advanced Materials by Design LioneI S. Johns, Assistant Director, OTA Energy, Materials, and International Security Division Peter D, Blair, Energy and Materials Program Manager Gregory Eyring, Project Director, November 1985 - June 1988 Laurie Evans Gavrin, Analyst, June 1986 - June 1988 Thomas E. Bull, Project Director, June 1985 - November 1985 Joan Adams, Analyst, June 1985 - January 1986 Administrative Staff Lillian Chapman Linda Long Tina Brumfield Contents Page Overview . 1 Chapter l. Executive Summary . 7 Chapter 2. Advanced Ceramics . 37 Chapter 3. Polymer Matrix Composites . 73 Chapter 4. Metal Matrix Composites. 99 Chapter 5. Factors Affecting the Use of Advanced Structural Materials. ... ... .... 121 Chapter 6. Impacts on the Basic Metals Industries . .......137 Chapter 7. Case Study: Polymer Matrix Composites in Automobiles . ... ....155 Chapter 8. Industrial Criteria for Investment . ............187 Chapter 9. International Business Trends . ....203 Chapter 10. Collaborative R&D: A Solution? . ................................251 Chapter 11. The Military Role in Advanced Materials Development . .............269 Chapter 12. Policy Issues and Options . ...........291 Appendix A. Contractors and Workshop Participants . .315 Appendix B. Glossary . ...........320 Index . .. ...329 — Overview New structural materials technologies will be onstrated in large-scale commercial applications. a determining factor in the global competitive- Potential end users in the United States have ness of U.S. manufacturing industries in the 1990s adopted a “wait and see” attitude, pending the and beyond. Today, for instance, materials ac- solution of remaining technical and economic count for as much as 30 to 50 percent of the costs problems. However, through well-coordinated of most manufactured products. New materials government-industry efforts, several countries, that can reduce overall production costs and im- notably Japan, have initiated more aggressive pro- prove performance can provide a competitive grams to commercialize their evolving materials edge in many products, including aircraft, auto- technologies. These programs have succeeded mobiles, industrial machinery, and sporting goods. in bringing advanced material products to the market years in advance of comparable U.S. Remarkable advances in structural materials products. Concern about the U.S. competitive technologies have been made in the past 25 position has led Congress to seek a coherent na- years. New materials such as ceramics and com- tional program to ensure that the United States posites offer superior properties (e.g., high-tem- will be able to capitalize on the opportunities perature strength, high stiffness, and light weight) offered by advanced materials. compared with traditional metals such as steel Advanced materials can be classified as metals, and aluminum. What is more, the materials them- ceramics, polymers, or composites, which gen- selves can be designed to have the properties erally consist of fibers of one material held to- required by a given application. Use of such de- gether by a matrix of a second material. Com- signed materials, which are often called “ad- posites are designed so that the fibers provide vanced,” can lead to higher fuel efficiencies, strength, stiffness, and fracture toughness, and the lower assembly costs, and longer service life for matrix binds the fibers together in the proper ori- many manufactured products. entation. This assessment focuses on three prom- ising categories of structural materials: ceramics Although the United States has achieved a (including ceramic matrix composites), polymer strong position in advanced materials technol- matrix composites, and metal matrix composites. ogies, largely as a result of military programs, it The principal purpose is to describe the major is by no means certain that the United States will opportunities for use of ceramics and composites, lead the world in the commercialization of these and to identify steps that the Federal Government materials. The technologies are still in their in- could take to accelerate the commercialization fancy, and cost-effective use of advanced mate- of advanced materials technologies in the United rials and fabrication processes is yet to be dem- States. THE U.S. ADVANCED MATERIALS ENVIRONMENT The current value of components produced petitive posture, is improved by use of the mate- from advanced structural ceramics and compos- rials. When the overall value of these products ites in the United States is less than $2 billion per is taken into account, use of advanced structural year. However, by the year 2000, U.S. produc- materials is likely to have a dramatic impact on tion is expected to grow to nearly $20 billion. This gross national product, balance of trade, and em- estimate includes only the value of the materials ployment. and structures; it does not include the value of the finished products (e.g., aircraft and automo- Military demand for high performance materi- biles), whose performance, and therefore com- als in the United States has already created a 1 2 ● Advanced Materials by Design thriving community of advanced materials sup- “market pull” on advanced materials technol- pliers. These suppliers are also seeking commer- ogies in the United States. cial applications for their materials. At present, In contrast to the market pull orientation of though, advanced materials developed for mili- firms in the United States, end users in foreign tary applications are expensive, and fabrication competitor nations, notably in Japan, are pursu- processes are poorly suited for mass production. ing a “technology push” approach, in which Potential U.S. commercial end users believe near-term profits are sacrificed in favor of gain- that major use of these materials will not be prof- ing the production experience necessary to se- itable within the next 5 years, the typical plan- cure a share of the large future markets. This ag- ning horizon of most firms. In many cases, 10 to gressive approach will probably give these firms 20 years will be required to solve remaining tech- a significant advantage in exploiting global mar- nical problems and to develop rapid, low-cost kets as they develop. OTA finds that manufac- manufacturing methods. Investment risks are