AlllQb 53715

pfO«p*c1u« Ofi th« lutur* of OC100 use NO 86-3240 V1#e5 C.1 NBS-PUB- REFERENCE

NBS

PUBLICATIONS

CONFERENCE

PROCEEDINGS

A NATIONAL PROSPECTUS

ON THE

FUTURE OF THE

U.S. ADVANCED CERAMICS

INDUSTRY

July 10-11, 1985

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, Maryland

NBS IR 85-3240

Sponsored by

U.S. Department of Commerce

• Office of Productivity, Technology & innovation

• Institute for Materials Science and Engineering

National Bureau of Standards

-QC

100

‘.U56

85-3240

1985
' ^

I

i
KESEAHCH pjroiaomoN

CENTER

CONFERENCE /*?

PROCEEDINGS

A NATIONAL PROSPECTUS

ON THE

FUTURE OF THE

U.S. ADVANCED CERAMICS

INDUSTRY

July 10-11, 1985

NBS IR 85-3240

^ #

Edited by

Samuel J. Schneider

Institute for Materials Science and Engineering

National Bureau of Standards

CONT^:l^TS

PAGE

PREFACE '

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

INTRODUCTION: CONFERENCE RATIONALE, PURPOSE, AND

ORGANIZATION ^ Samuel J. Schneider

SESSION I: OVERVIEW 15

Welcoming Remarks 17

Ernest Ambler

Advanced Materials in the National Economy 19

Don Ritter

Advanced Cer ami cs--Opportun i ty and Challenge 25

Albert R. C. Westwood and Jan Skalny

SESSION II; INFORMATION BASE 35

Session Chairman Remarks 37

Lyle H. Schwartz

U.S. Competitive Position in Advanced Ceramics . 39

Michael T. Kelley

Technological and Economic Assessments of Advanced

Ceramics ^5

S. L. Blum and S. Kalos

Market Opportunities 55

J.J. Harwood and D.W. Lee

SESSION III: COOPERATIVE MECHANISMS AND HESPONSE 63

Forces of Change in the Industrial Sector 65

D. Bruce Merrifield

The Need for Cooperative R&D--Case Studies 73

Lansing R. Felker and Susan L. Miller

Advanced Cer ami cs --Indus try /Uni ver s i t y Interactions ... 8l

John B. Wachtman, Jr. and Malcolm G. McLaren

Advanced Cerami cs--Industrial/Government Interactions . . 87

Ora E. Smith

SESSION IV: WORKSHOPS ON INDUSTRIAL COOPERATION 93

Structural Ceramics 95

Joseph N. Panzarino

Electronic Ceramics 101

Robert J. Stokes

III
IV
SESSION V; A NATIONAL AGEITDA FOR A07ANCR:1) CERAMICS:

CONSERSTJS VIEWS: Ill

Richard M. Spriggs

APPENDIX 119

Conference Program 121

Background Reports 125

Biographies 127

Participants 139

Acknowledgment 1^7

V
-A

VI

r
PREFACE
2
PREPACE

Recently Issued Department of Commerce reports and a number of other studies carried out in the past year have

shown that the U.S. competitive position in advanced

ceramics is being seriously challenged. Our lead in

ceramic electronic components has been largely lost and

unless action is taken now, it is unlikely that the U.S.

will regain a significant competitive position. Similarly,

in engineered (structural) ceramic products, other nations

are aggressively targeting this area for development and

the U.S. will gradually fall behind if current trends continue.. The implications of these findings could be farreaching for both the over a 11 - strength of the U.S. economy

and for national security.

To address this problem, the Commerce Department held a conference on July 10 and 11, 1985, jointly sponsored by

the Office of Productivity, Technology and Innovation and

the National Bureau of Standards. Leaders from ceramics

producing and user firms as well as from the universities

and government were invited to meet to assess the status of

U.S. structural and electronics advanced ceramics research,

where we are going, and, hopefully reach a consensus on

further steps that are needed.

This report constitutes the Proceedings of the Conference and represents the factual information and documentation available at the conclusion of the meeting. What may

not be evident from the printed word is the spirit and enthusiasm shown by the conferees in carrying out their

charge. It was obvious that the advanced ceramics industry

and those from government and academia were concerned about

competition and the American system and intend to work cooperatively in the best interests of all.

As with all conferences, it takes many dedicated people

to plan and carry off a successful meeting and special

thanks are due to the staffs of our organizations, the

speakers, and participants for

Lyle H. Schwartz

Director, Institute for

Materials Science and

Engineering

National Bureau of Standards

their many contributions.

D, Bruce Merrlfleld

Assistant Secretary for

Productivity, Technology

and Innovation

Department of Commerce

3
'3 ht^4tn

^en »Q t>#u b ii % X4

j

8t>A^«S

?a,f^/ Brtf 's^s-rtiio

. V '

: 1, W “ .'W

a /TO 43 an "mart:30- liis'fi' i « 'js#;3 '6t/'*» 3 a,)' b a'4«

bn a,|:'4' n a «q© 1 ©va,%;

satSfiB ftl nol’"' tjR'4'3©infiV tX©vl»««ni-^a ©'.-a* «bn«n3; l-i tw «',9 >«(3

_^na"t ;#!i4' bljkoo' -afni^ io*%iO'.43aolX<|oX a/tt .Bunii'

^mon'oo© ';^^:^.^ ‘''9^3‘^ie' e,ff3 f!3oct no1 snl Ko-8i*>'.si8 ^nnw^ Uhol^a^ti^p% ©na

__LI31Lat-.T,5'.—*;i,Vll- ''tv ,ffi©X3o*i<i «lrt3 ae»*tbti« oT

-'SP; -,

' S

\

^y^rVi ' •>,, bX ©fJ 3,ri0a3 T ftQ sd '©» n«^»o0 9 ft 3

b©‘iOBnbq»^ vXIfilol'* C? nb •onanalnoo

^XSbiortbOaf *“ i Y3^TXi©wfco-T^ to BolttO

I

b fj no 13sy o»ft I b na

“'BOlaanBo a®nt anobjitJ .ob^tsb^iig to oi^bnoa 2afioX3Bl( Bb3

eolXiB-sovin^ aril as Xi»« &£.-' BSTit n:«eu bn« galou&otq-^^

^to bu3*3b Brt3 ««»teseo3 3»9i>-'o44 bfliveri «rn»wt£'3rioan'T«7 09 boa

^tla*T»sa»'» Eolaa'iBo batoo'birba lany3ou*iia .8,U

/gflo BoMaanoc; a rtoosn tXXtftobo^t ana «»v Bnatfu^

»na ,fteb3 r4;«3a -^•rt3n^it^

*n»t ftoOA ©iiSi to ^B 5w£ baBao^Tt ^©fl3 |;^93y 313'Bnoo ^notjan aX/tt

r^s3neaooof> bn'a aoi3a©’tot>fTl X»<^3oa'^ a'3’f?9e*'Tq«n baa aorfo

ysffl 3srtW^ .30X399^18 ©riSuto iH^Xa^XOflfeo osl3 39 oXOAnaas aol3

•ftB One ilnlqe 9if3 a{ fentrt^ bainl'rq ar!3®mo'^t 3 ob &1 va ©d don

; js niartd 3©o initnnao nl B^atst noa'^if^ Yd 0«alauri3

r^i^iXn^BubBi 1 •' ”iooda bonnooftooeoXBanBo^OttOnavbe artd dona ©i^oXvdO as© 3l .ainado.

saoffi bna

dno'Wa.od9 19w,‘i 9 1 it» b 9-0 6 mto1 03 9^p ntt>n»3nl Orta «9 3 byb Heoinoj*^ art 3 fc^s 31 .laqeoo

.XXa'^tO' eiaanodnX, d'E9d off

3'

«9>(b3 ‘ aXqq*^ bodsoib'ob t«*«

~ I « I ooq© bfr b mid •©«» lu

nOd3 .BooidaalftSiio loo

fti ,^ievi;an9Qo

3i

-.3 ifc.. .i? j,ft9099netri^ lis rtdiw ©a

9990O4I9 tto*Y^19o fens rralQ oj

to attfda ofitf bj 91/ a 919 tuinejfS

'*em>l3odl"t3noo twSfj -tiorti lot adfn*ql013ieq on# ,Bn9jiF9q«

,W^ i - >'

' ' ' mi-'

l/t, ^1> $3 19¥j1 oE , M 9 f 1

M not 93 i> 313b 0:1 inodo9niCJ

bns 900 s> log oXaxm-iaH

«’St^i * »t ] n 9 90 ,1 30 a » 1 1> t € b n 938 vt o If »9 6 X a no 1 3 aW

r . « I" J

not \niK39%fj|'E 3rt»3«l»B4

^'^Vs oX 0 ort o 9 1 * tdlv I 3 99fe o-f

t

^

ooiiavonitt

»!9»|jlO0 1 bna^

3iff»«3n8q»Q,

Sil m '.S9

'1)'< r

# 4

1^.

E« in

H«P<
EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Advanced ceramics are a new generation of

h i gh-per f ormanc e materials, widely believed to hold promise

of markets in the tens of billions of dollars by the end of

the century. Collectively, they represent an enabling

technology, development of which is critical to advances in

a host of high-technology applications ranging from modern

microelectronic components to futuristic auto engines.

Because of their potential, worldwide interest and activity

is growing. Numerous studies and assessments have

indicated that foreign competition ’"is intense, with current

markets in major electronic applications areas largely

lost, even though the U.S. once held a technological lead.

The prognosis for U.S. dominaace of future advanced

ceramics markets would appear to be equally dim, if these

current trends continue.

In recognition of the competitive issues confronting

the U.S. advanced ceramics industry, the Department of

Commerce, through two sister agenc ies--The Office of

Productivity, Technology, and Innovation and the

Institute for Materials Science and Engineering, National

Bureau of Standards, served as conveners of an industrially

oriented conference, held July 10-11, 1985. Leaders from

ceramic producing and user firms as well as from the

universities and government were invited to meet for the

express purpose of:

Identifying and assessing the critical issues affecting

the competitive position of U.S. industry in the

current and future electronic and structural advanced

ceramics world market, and developing approaches for

improved market posture through cooperative industrial

R&D and associated efforts.

The structure of the meeting was designed, first, to

provide information on the status of advanced ceramics

technology in the U.S. and second, through workshop and

panel sessions, define what might be done to enhance the

U.S. competitive position, from both a technological and

business viewpoint.

In Session I-Overview, Representative Don Ritter stated

that ’’Nowhere is the competition in international trade

more evident than in ceramic technology. There is still

today in the United States only a weak U.S. industry in

high technology ceramics while the Japanese have made a strong commitment to become the major world source of these

materials. U.S. industry must accept responsibility for

the bulk of the work. The government can help but massive

government intervention cannot achieve competitiveness in

any industry.” Albert Westwood, Corporate Director, R&D,

Martin Marietta Corp., noted that recent cooperative

7
efforts in ceramics, including the formation of several

research consortia at universities, is a step in the right

direction, but warned that this is not enough to ensure

that U.S. companies win their fair-share. For this to

happen, U.S. industrial management must develop a long-term

commitment to exploit advanced ceramics in new and existing

markets, spur materials scientists in their ceramics work,

and do a better job of collecting and utilizing technical

knowledge about ceramics generated here and abroad.

Session II--Inf ormat ion Base, provided summary reviews

of previously conducted studies and assessments of the

technological and economic aspects of advanced ceramics.

Lyle Schwartz, Director, Institute for Materials Science

and Engineering, NBS, stated that the technical issues were

clear but what remains to be answered is how they can be

resolved in expeditious manner while still maintaining the

traditional . roles for industry, universities and

government. Basically the competitive challenge equates to

one of cooperation and coordination. Deputy Assistant

Secretary Kelley, Basic Industries, ITA-DOC, discussed the

U.S. competitive position, emphasizing that Japan has

benefited from government targeting policies in the

high-tech areas like ceramics. By contrast, the advanced

ceramics industry in the U.S. is fragmented with little

cooperation between companies. S. L. Blum, Vice President,

Charles River Associates, presented statistical information

on current and future markets and on the changing structure

of the U.S. advanced ceramics industry. He projected that

the future is bright, but depends upon the solution of a number of significant technical problems. The level of

ceramic R&D and strategies devoted vary among nations but

no clear winner in the worldwide ceramics race has emerged.

J. J. Harwood, President, Ovonics Synthetic Materials Co.,

talked about market opportunities and about the barriers

which limit commercialization and market penetration. He

categorized the major barriers as related to (a) production

costs, (b) manufacturing reliability and uniformity of

properties, and (c) reliability in performance. Harwood

further identified three areas which might have an impact

on the U.S. competitive position through RDLP opportunities

(1) improved powder characteristics, (2) wear components,

and (3) sensors.

Session III--Cooperat ive Mechanisms and Response, dealt

with the forms and benefits of cooperative industrial R&D.

D. Bruce Merrifield, Assistant Secretary, OPTI, DOC, emphasized that the U.S. has remarkable attributes and resources

including, an industrial advanced technology base, an incomparable industrial infrastructure, a most effective

capital formation capability and an unique entr epr eneur ial

culture. Cooperative R&D arrangements initiated by the

private sector can mobilize these resources for enhanced

competitiveness with the federal role focused only on

removing barriers, providing incentives and catalyzing the

8
cooperative process. Lansing Felker, Director, Industrial

Technology Program, DOC, pointed out that the cost of

keeping pace with technology development is increasing

beyond the capability of individual firms, but that under

the Cooperative Research Act of 198^^, enhanced industrial

cooperation is now possible. Notable examples of

cooperative ventures registered under the Act include the

Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC)

and the Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC).

Malcolm McLaren, Chairman, Ceramic Department, The Rutgers

State University, described forms of un i ver s i t y/ i ndus t r

y

interactions and their benefits to the state, the

university and to the participating industrial

organizations. He cited various modes of interactions,

including consulting, grants, single sponsor research and

particularly multiclient consortia such as those now

established at Rutgers, Penn State, MIT and UC (Berkeley).

The consortia mechanism is especially useful in not only

producing generic research to complement industrial R&D but

also, in assuring the training of talent specifically

needed by industry. Ora Smith, Senior Policy Analyst,

OSTP, elaborated on the role Federal laboratories could

have in assisting industry. He emphasized that while these

labs have great technical resources (1/6th of the Nation's

scientists and engineers), their utilization by industry

requires in-depth joint program planning and structuring

and mutual interest. Coordination and communication is the

key to successful government/ interactions and if properly

pursued, the rather tenuous past relationships could be

improved

Sessions IV and V--Workshops and Consensus Views were

the central feature of the conference, providing a forum

for industrial views on where the advanced ceramic industry

is and where it should go to meet the competitive

challenge. The conferees were asked to address the

following questions for the business areas of electronic

and structural ceramics:

1. What is the status of R&D? Are current activities

sufficient? In what areas are there deficiencies?

2. What are the market growth areas and what is

industry doing to meet the challenge?

3. Does industry need and want cooperative research

and if so, in what areas and in what form?

Joseph Panzarino, Director of Research, High Performance

Division, Norton Company, led the structural workshop and

Robert Stokes, Principal Staff Scientist, Honeywell

Physical Science Center, a separate one on electronic

ceramics. Richard Spriggs, Senior Staff Officer, National

Materials Advisory Board, NRC, organized the summary panel

9
to synthesize the findings of the two workshops and obtain

consensus views on future actions and define the next steps

to achieve conference recommendations.

The individual workshops, although varying in detail,

arrived at basically the same set of conclusions and

recommendations;

Technical Status

R&D activities exist throughout the complete spectrum

from basic idea generation to prototype manufacture to

commercial products. Additional R&D investment could

be beneficial for several product classes, with emphasis on the translation phase (development-prototypeinterim manufacture).

Market Potential

Current and future advanced ceramic markets are substantial with certain product classes more attractive

than others; all deserve attention by U.S. industry as potentially fruitful business areas. With respect to

competitive position, U.S. industry was judged to have

the advantage in only few areas and average or below

for the others.

Cooperative Research

A major need exists for cooperative industrial R&D.

Such activities are needed to maintain at a minimum,

the present competitive status and essential to establish a better position.

In summary, workshop participants agreed on the most

critical areas for R&D and on the necessity for inter- and

intra- industrial cooperation to encourage the growth,

productivity and competitiveness of the U.S. advanced

ceramics industry. Based on a consensus of the conferees

it was recommended that the assistance of the Department of

Commerce be sought to form an industrial steering committee

to build upon the work of conference and pursue such

actions leading to one or more cooperative research

ventures. (Editor's Note: A letter dated August 12, 1985

was sent to the Department of Commerce requesting

assistance; a reply, dated October 11, 1985 indicated that

appropriate assistance would be provided.)

10
INTRODUCTION

i

11

confer^:nce rationale, pdtrpose, and organization

S amuel J. Schneider

Institute for Materials Science and Engineering

National Bureau of Standards

Advanced ceramics are a new generation of highper formance' mater ials which have begun to be used for

sophisticated high-technology applications. They have

unique properties (electrical, mechanical, optical, magnetic, heat /corros i on resistance) that make them the preferred material for diverse applications including

electronics, heat engines, cutting tools and wear parts,

biomedical devices and sensors. Their superior properties

allow use in extremely demanding environments far beyond

the capabilities of advanced metals and plastics and even

conventional ceramics. The potential impact of advanced

ceramics on U.S. industry and the national economy is becoming clear: their development and exploitation is critical to advances in transportation, communications, energy

conversion, computers, defense systems, and a host of

modern consumer products.

Worldwide production capability for advanced ceramics

is growing rapidly creating significant competition for the

U.S., Initially from Japan but with Western Europe also beginning to make In-roads. The implications of ceramics

markets are far reaching. At stake is not just the ceramics producing Industry but also the industries which, in

order to stay competitive, will use ceramics materials to

manufacture their own products. For example, according to

a study by Argonne National Laboratory, if the U.S. could

develop and capture a significant portion of the advanced

ceramics market for auto engines, the result would be an

increase in GNP of as much as $279 billion over the next

20 years, along with 250,000 jobs.

Currently, the U.S. appears to have lost significant

segments of existing advanced ceramics markets, particularly in electronics areas. The capture of future markets

(e.g. heat engines, cutting tools, advanced electronics,

etc.) depend upon significant technical R&D successes and,

at present, there is no clear indication that either the

U.S. or its foreign competition holds a broad technical

lead. Technical excellence and advancement alone, however,

do not assure market entry and dominance; there are many

interrelated and competing factors that mitigate and often

control commercial success. Industry structure and capabilities, marketing and investment strategies, and commitment are as Important as R&D thrusts.

13
At present there is growing interest and activity in

advanced ceramics in the U.S. However, those efforts are

disaggregated and may not be sufficient to achieve and

maintain a competitive position. Conversely, Japan has

mounted a national program using cooperative mechanisms and

techniques many of which are not viable in the U.S. economic system. However, alternative approaches are possible

wh'ich would allow a new level of cooperation among U.S.

firms. Specifically, joint research ventur es --me chan isms

by which industry cooperatively can fund basic or generic

r es ear ch--may be especially appropriate for the emerging

Advanced Ceramics technology. The National Cooperative

Research Act of 1 98M now has removed the antitrust uncertainty from such ventures, thus providing one effective

avenue for U.S. industry to better compete with the

targeted industry consortia of our main trading partners.

The competitive challenge confronting the U.S. Advanced

Ceramics industry clearly equates to one of better cooperation and coordination. In recognition of this, the objective of the conference was to identify and assess critical

issues affecting the competitive position of U.S. industry

in the current and future advanced ceramics world market,

and to develop approaches for improved market posture

through cooperative industrial R&D and associated efforts.

The structure of the meeting was designed, first, to

provide information on the status of Advanced Ceramics

technology in the U.S. and second, through workshop

sessions and summary panels define and obtain consensus

views on what might be done to enhance the U.S. competitive

position, from both a technological and business viewpoint.

The following questions were assessed for the business

areas of electronic and structural ceramics:

1. What is the status of R&D? Are current activities sufficient? In what areas are there deficiencies?

2. What are the market growth areas and what is industry

doing to meet the challenge?

3. Does industry need and want cooperative research and if

so, in what areas and in what form?

The Proceedings of the conference, given in the following sections, detail the views of the speakers and participants and reflect their efforts to develop approaches for

future actions that will optimize the growth, productivity,

and competitiveness of the U.S. Advanced Ceramics industry.

14
SESSION I:

OVERVIEW

15
AS

V. --jpit

M

-J %4 .-ittll I m^.% i.*»

* end

iv /i *3

teX: . •;% ifi

mi I 't.

i. X i

>f.i/

_ i*v,vt»e*<J

/ >>eopef*«-

t « • -^'it^ ^ 1 1 i 1

•.' e Iftdijaliff *

' ' ' e**'‘'‘*:'*r5»f

r«» 9iu»*e Z,M

m f '' %

?3 .

•*» -i ' '’ *-f •* y*’ '#r

f:

,..* rforti'4

» f I ,

• to

"^a<**loe 'f| '

^ #1 . . I»fliu*

'

I ti\^4

. »f Art^f m

a

'-aM~~"

f

.1

'

• tt 1 4#e

•.’SS-.

!3

'i i

I'" • »»« f0 1 10iH;i

i±t pertlol

1* -•

‘ I .

,' f - 1 '

ei

16
WELCOMING EEMARKS

Ernest Ambler

Director

National Bureau of Standards

Thank you Dr. Merrifield. Good morning Ladies and

Gentlemen, Congressman Ritter, distinguished guests. It is

my pleasure to welcome you to the National Bureau of

Standards for this conference on advanced ceramics. As you

will note from the program, the co-sponsors of the meeting

are the Office of Productivity, Technology and Innovation

and the NBS Institute for Materials Science and Engineering. It is especially fitting, I believe, for these two

Department of Commerce sister organizations to join together to host an industry oriented conference having an

inter-related theme focusing on R&D and competitive issues.

This is an important area of concern to the whole of the

Department of Commerce and your deli berations--the industrial viewpoint and consensus actions —are vitally important to the future of the advanced ceramic industry.

It is also appropriate for the site of the conference

to be NBS for we have long been engaged in ceramic

research. Our first recorded ceramic activity dates back

to 1910, only nine years after the Bureau was formed. The

intensity with which we have worked on ceramics has varied

since then but right now is . under going a resurgence. We

have now a substantial effort in advanced ceramics and

expect to do more. I encourage you to visit our facilities

to see first hand some of the interesting research we have

underway on powder synthesis, mechanical proprieties, phase

diagrams, neutron scattering, and the like.

I take great pride in the fact that since its founding,

our activities at NBS have been directed to support industrial needs. We interact daily with industry through our

Industrial Research Associate Program and in a host of

other ways. This conference today is but one example illustrating how NBS and the Department of Commerce attempt

to serve industry. I note that the objective of the organizers of this meeting is to catalyze and stimulate discussion and interaction between prominent industrialists,

representing different interest, so that industry can chart

its own course in the important and growing area of

advanced ceramics. This is an appropriate role for government to play, and I am looking forward to the results of

the conference.

I certainly welcome you to NBS and wish you great success in your deliberations.

17
:i^ik :^‘-' l^m iii ^54 '< " ; :..

'T?,

w -r ^. . ,„ ,^O^i.^^i»b^.»#|:apf '

p^m: TM‘ ^ «oJ Ir

* !»A&f*:!"S

- iJv?»‘'®‘'^^'^S* ,«j^*n?>;»«tl>0 IJ'JTS Jni6o wfl » I »J«»i

'B:Q'M:&

, «.'•

^ fjf Ift » ® ® ?'fi''i^CJ'0‘T^t C^A'X^ 6ii

* I ^ ostJ

2'n't^ »i*jfO £

^ . ei .V^ itf^in risrt-rf L'nTi

e/i«MiS& JS K4!*«?••! "VJ '«»'»'»* itUnajSrtus a ««p araii

4X0,'"

1^ 'a' (&''l'>S'3,a*ia, itetiitwsn .josisatfi!

^ilBbei: -.J,a«gs' O.S »tf., w,-a , C

tfaj^siiib naij .^van ssit. ' tS

-U9»^,,ex^ „no 3ud .i«ab'^i.,i„,,,tajir.”rS iJsC

& «% A .5a»Mf.il*3n».(9n4|„ ,„x,c«„„„

!^AO' Jll:i^.;5,aT srtd od* b«i8v*i'd:it ‘"jnl,

'MliTlIiltT' -"'- lir

-" m£ I &n£ qfi

. »&IXO '1»1ri«G '%A;l

_^-aenoJ it^iad i X »b 'ui^^ pi tf^«i^
ADVANCED MATEBIALS ITI TEE NATIONAL ECONOMY

Honorable Don Ritter (R-PA15)

U.S. House of Representatives

My objective today is to share with you some of my own

thoughts about how important advanced materials are to our

national economy and to relate some of the actions now

underway in the Congress to help the United States maintain

(or in some cases, perhaps to reclaim) a leadership role.

Over the past three or four years, members of your

Congress have become increasingly aware of the importance

of advanced materials to our national economy. We have

seen, for example, tremendous increases in the efficiency

of our telecommunications systems which have been made possible by advances in optical fiber transmission systems.

Advancements continue to be made in the telecommunications

field by further refinements in fiber optics and other

electronic components.

Expert witnesses appearing before members of the House

Committee on Science and Technology have described the potential value of many other "advanced materials.” In every

case, while the market value of a new material may itself

be quite substantial, the timely, practical application of

these new materials can have an ultimate impact on the

national economy that extends far beyond the specific dollar value of the new material. This cascading effect is

often quite remarkable.

A joint effort of the Department of Energy and the

American Iron and Steel Institute may be successful in

combining modern electronics and modern materials to develop a special purpose sensing device to directly measure the

chemical composition of molten steel. Use of this device

could save the Industry somewhere in the range of 200

million dollars annually in operating costs and energy

costs.

The potential development of a strip casting process

combined with in-line rolling to produce steel sheet for

automotive and other applications is another example of new

technology in the traditional field of metallurgy. It has

been estimated that such a development would save the country 10'^ BTU’s of energy per year. This development also

has the potential for lowering costs, and perhaps most importantly to produce steel of higher quality and improved

properties that would be more competitive at home and

abroad

.

19
Another example of an important advanced material is

the specialty steels used in the core of electric transformers. Our current annual loss of energy in power transformers is 50 billion kilowatt hours--this is equivalent to

the loss of about 2 and 3/^ billion dollars each year. By

making improvements in existing crystalline silicon sheet

steels, it may be possible to reduce this loss by 30 percent--and new amorphous metal sheet materials have the potential to cut that loss in half.

Lightweight mater ials -- inc lud ing composites, newer

steels, and magnes i um--ha ve also begun to have their impact

on the automobile industry. The potential impact of these

materials on fuel economy has been well documented and

could result in savings in excess of 20 percent of today’s

U.S. oil consumption. But there are other advantages to

the uses of these new materials. They provide the opportunity to produce longer lasting, more reliable, lower

cost, peppier automobiles, with greater design flexibility.

This could be a powerful factor in helping us gain a competitive advantage. Toyota was the first to develop and put

into production a commercial application of metal matrix

technology. It is vital that we catch up and pass our competitors in this and in other new materials technologies

for automotive applications.

There are many other examples, but advanced ceramics

surely is one of the most exciting topics in the advanced

materials field. The market forecast for advanced ceramics

assures for them a prominent place in the economy of any

nation. Recent studies by Charles River Associates estimated the value of advanced ceramics produced by the free

world nations at 12 billion dollars in 1990. This estimate

is increased to 17 billion dollars in 1995. The consumption of ceramic products in heat-engine components and integrated optic devices, neither of which are at present

produced commercially in the United States, is projected to

grow at more than 40 percent per year during the 1990s.

The skillful application of advanced ceramics can achieve

fantastic collateral benefits. Advanced ceramic materials

offer the chance to increase the operating temperatures of

truck and automobile engines very substantially, and thus

could increase fuel efficiency at least 30 or 40 percent. I am told that between the years 1985 and 2005, a successful

United States ceramic engine program could add 280 billion

dollars to our gross national product. Now that is an objective that is certainly worth working for!

Nowhere is the competition in international trade more

evident than in modern ceramic technology. There is still

today in the United States only a weak U.S. industry in

high technology ceramics while the Japanese have made a strong commitment to become the major world source of these

materials. A study on high-technology ceramics in Japan

was recently completed by the National Materials Advisory

20
Board of the National Research Council. A study team

visited Japan and met with members of the Japanese Government and leaders in their ceramic industry. The team concluded that in Japan, advanced ceramics is recognized as an

extremely significant emerging technology with the potential for Important economic, industrial, and social

impacts. Because of this, the Japanese are committed to

develop the field of high-technology ceramics vigorously,

and perhaps even to dominate this field.

I think it is important that the United States meet the

challenge of this competition. In , this regard, the study

team made several recommendations, which include such

act i ons as

o The development of mechanisms for gathering and disseminating timely information on Japanese ceramics publications, reports, and patents, and the creation of better

communications with Japanese counterparts in the ceramics

Industry.

© The advancement of U.S. industry’s timetable for the

emergence of high-technology ceramics markets.

0 Capitalization on research and development funded by

DOD and other government agencies by applying the results

to civilian markets.

© Acceleration of research and development of production technology for high-technology ceramics.

© Establishment of a U.S. "Ceramics Industry Association" to facilitate gathering and dissemination of information and to develop a sense of purpose for the industry.

The Congress is very concerned about the many challenges that our industries face from foreign suppliers. In

the House of Representatives, I am involved in activities

which are searching for ways to help our industry Improve

its competitiveness and its ability to successfully meet

these challenges. The House Science and Technology Committee has formed a task force to study our Nation’s science

policy with the objective of improving the knowledge of

Congressmen in this important area of policy and identifying policy modifications which will promote both advancements in science and the international competitiveness of

American industry. The task force is holding a series of

hearings in which pre-eminent scientists, engineers, and

policymakers representing many disciplines and viewpoints

will provide the task force with a broad picture of U.S.

science policy and form a strong foundation for future

policy recommendations.

21
I also serve as vice chairman of the House Republican

Research Committee’s Task Force on High Technology. The

objective of this special group is to identify and work for

a legislative agenda which will promote the advancement of

technology in the United States. We believe that strengthening the pr erequi s i tes for innovation is the real solution

to meeting the challenges of the international marketplace.

These prerequisites are:

© A strong commitment to basic research;

0 Incentives for risk taking and capital formation;

© An ample quantity of trained workers; and

© Expanding market opportunities.

A few examples of the ways these prerequisites may be

strengthened include:

© An extension and refinement of the incremental

research and development tax credit to make it more useful

to more industries and companies;

© Liberalization of IRA rules to allow individuals to

withdraw from their savings without penalty or taxation to

pay for employment retraining; and

© Amendment of the Freedom of Information Act by

requiring that owners of proprietary information filed with

the Federal Government be given the opportunity to challenge requests made under the FOIA for that information

before it is released.

1 strongly believe that the Government cannot achieve

competitiveness in your industry, or any other, by massive

intervention. You have to accept responsibility for the

bulk of the work needed to make yourselves successful in

the world marketplace. The Government can help--but the

Government’s help can only be efficient and effective if it

is properly focused on your true needs. We want to hear

your ideas on the ways in which obstacles to your progress

can be most effectively removed.

There must be closer relationships between research

conducted in the Federal laboratories and the high risk

research needs of Industry.

There must be better coordination and interchange of

ideas between Industry, the universities, and government so

that scientific advancement can be achieved in the most effective and efficient manner.

22
We must all pool our knowledge so that market and tech

nologlcal forecasts can be as good as we can make them.

I think the bottom line is simply this —we have got to

play team ball! And the ”we” is all of us--gover nment , industry, and the universities. Good team action requires

clear, open channels of communications between all of the

players. This conference is clearly a step toward establishing the information exchange which can lead to success

23
\ • » n If
ADVANCED CERAMICS —OPPORTUnTT AND CHALLENGE

A.R.C. Westwood and Jan Skalny^

Martin Marietta Laboratories

Introduction

The Ages of Man are sometimes referred to in terms of

the predominant materials of construction of the period...

hence the Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age, etc. However,

the accelerating pace of technological development has reduced such ages to mere overlapping decades, the aluminum

decades merging into the plastics decade, and most recently

the silicon decade. Soon, it seems, progress will occur so

swiftly that we will have time only to refer to the' "year”

of some new wonder material or other!

But this is not likely to be the case for the latest

cause of excitement on the materials scene, Advanced

Ceramics. These are made from extremely pure, ultra-fine,

inorganic particles, the composition of which is very carefully controlled. The particles are formed, agglomerated,

and heat-treated under tightly monitored conditions.

Indeed, the care used in the preparation of Advanced

Ceramics is more akin to that used in the production of

semiconductor materials for electronic applications than

that for traditional ceramic whiteware and, predictably, it

results in superior and more reproducible performance characteristics.

Of particular Interest are the approaches now being

developed to overcome the intrinsic brittleness of ceramics, for example, by incorporating fine fibers and/or

phase- trans forming particles. Such techniques are providing values of fracture toughness approaching those of

metals, e.g. 10-20 MPam^'^.

Impressive though the physical and mechanical properties of Advanced Ceramics of the near future will be, there

are other .reasons why this class of materials are likely to

be of enduring economic importance. They include (a) the

fact that they can be made from readily available raw

materials, an important factor for nations of limited

natural resources, e.g. Japan; (b) the diversity of areas

of application, ranging from automobiles to electronics,

photonics, energy systems, and medicine; and (3) the

growing realization that the fine particle chemistry

approaches being developed to produce Advanced Ceramics are

likely to be equally applicable to other structural materials. Thus, before long, it may be possible to produce

^ Now at the Research Division of W. R. Grace and Company,

Columbia, MD 210411.

25
near-net green shapes in steels, aluminum alloys, and other

basic structural materials by similar colloid chemistry

routes, circumventing the traditional and capital intensive

heat-and-beat approach.

In short. Advanced Ceramics represent much more than

merely the latest opportunity for materials scientists to

ply their craft. This is why they are causing excitement

and anticipation in both the technical and economic communities.

In this contribution, we discuss some of the challenges

and opportunities presented by Advanced Ceramics to U.S.

industry. We shall not address the substantial technical

problems that lie ahead, confidently assuming that our

scientific and engineering ingenuity will Successfully

overcome or circumvent most of them.

The Prospects for Advanced Ceramics

What might be the situation in the year 2000, given the

vigorous application of imagination, technical effort, and

capital in the Intervening years? We foresee:

i A U.S. market of order $15B per year^ (about equal to

that estimated by Japan's Fine Ceramics Association for

their home market [1]).

A significant export market, the result of efficient,

automated production processes in and dedicated marketing

by U.S. industry.

More than 50 U.S. corporations committed to the longterm development and exploitation of Advanced Ceramics.

Multicompany consortia and multinational operations common.

An auto industry producing cars containing 50 kg of

ceramic components, some millions of which cars are exported. They will operate without traditional cooling or lubricating systems, be essentially non-polluting, and travel

well over fifty miles on each gallon of fuel consumed.

Post VSLI-chips based on more temperature-resistant

materials than silicon, e.g. doped silicon carbide.

Communications mostly via photonics, utilizing advanced

ceramic fiber transmission lines possibly made from dopedfluorldes. Holographic applications will be common, based

on multiwave mixing in ceramic crystals.

2 Figure includes value of ceramic materials and of

ceramic-dependent components.

26
New types of optoelectronic, acousto-optic, and other

types of sensors, modulators, and switches based on complex

ceramic compositions widely used in automated and robotic

systems in industry and the home.

Dental and orthopedic surgeons using ceramic prostheses

with properties closely comparable to nature’s own, and a lively supporting bioceramic industry.

Nuclear energy recognized as the best 'mid-term option

with Advanced Ceramics utilized in fuel and structural elements, and for waste containment.

The Present Situation

Recognizing the prospects outlined above, and others,

interest in Advanced Ceramics is extremely high in Japan.

Indeed, the term ’’Ceramic Fever” has been used to reflect

Japan’s enthusiasm for this emerging area of materials

technology, and especially for its near-term objective of

producing more efficient auto engines based on the extensive use of Advanced Ceramics.

Enthusiasm has also been growing recent in the U.S....

especially during the past two years. And though it does

not yet rival Japan’s ’’fever,” the situation fortunately is

a far cry from that of just a few years ago... when our

ability to put together an effective equivalent to the cooperative and focused efforts of Japan’s MITI-catalyzed

government and industry consortia was in real doubt [2,3].

At that time, U.S. industry and government seemed to

see themselves as adversaries rather than allies, and university engineering departments were wasting away ... under

funded, poorly equipped, and out of touch.

The atmosphere has now changed significantly, with

recognition of the vitality of this latest technological

challenge from Japan playing a large part in our belated

recognition of the need to regain control of our technological fate.

In the past, American companies were effectively prevented from cooperative action by strong antitrust laws

Intended to prevent the formation of monopolies that might

not operate in the best interests of the citizen. But, as Simon Ramo has commented [^], such legislation was created

for an Isolated, stand-alone America. Today, however, products, markets, and competition are increasingly international. Thus, to compete with foreign government - Industry

teams, U.S. companies must form their own teams, and

integrate more effectively the brain power of our universities. This is beginning to happen.

27
Industry support of academic researchers has increased

markedly in the past three years. And though most of

industry’s grants are for ’’undirected" research, the coming

together of university and industry researchers to discuss

the results and implications of their efforts will inevitably influence the direction of work in both sectors, and

especially the professors’ perception of industry’s needs.

Especially significant is the formation of the Ceramic

Processing Consortium at MIT, the Center for Ceramic

Research at Rutgers University, and the Center for Dielectric Studies at Pennsylvania State University. Each have

support from more than 20 corporations.

Federal support of engineering research in the

universities has also begun to increase substantially with

the establishment by NSF of several new multi-disciplinary

Engineering Centers. Eventually, each will be funded at a level of several million dollars per year, be focused on

some important area of technology, and be guided by an

Advisory Board containing industrial managers. Interest in

this new initiative has been great; the National Science

Foundation received well over a hundred proposals from

which to select its first six Centers. One of the new

Centers, that on Composites Manufacturing, contains a Rutger’s component concerned with Advanced Ceramics.

Ceramics-related activity in American industry also has

increased substantially in the past two years, and the acquisition of small entrepreneurial companies by industrial

giants seeking to establish or expand their foothold in

this field has begun. Among such acquires are W.R. Grace,

Air Products and Chemicals, Dow Corning, and Koppers.

Other major players in Advanced Ceramics include Alcoa,

Carborundum, Corning, Cummins, DuPont, Ford, Garrett, General Electric, GM, GTE, IBM, Norton, and TRW.

A new spirit of cooperation between Federal agencies

and industry also is arising. Federal laboratories such as the Oak Ridge National Laboratory now have technology

transfer functions in place and active. Cooperative

programs are increasing in number, especially projects

involving the shared use of expensive apparatus, such as ion-implantation machine. Industrial support of promising

work by scientists working in government labs is beginning

to occur.

Cooperation between government agencies also is

improving, as exemplified by that between DOE, DOD, and

NASA in the funding of research on ceramics for advanced

heat engines at DOE’s Oak Ridge National laboratory and

NASA’s Lewis Research Center. Funding related to this

particular effort Increased to about $ 1

6

m in 1 985, DOE’s

overall automotive technology budget for FY 85 being about

$50M.

28
The recent upsurge in ceramics activity in the U.S.A.

is further evidenced by statistics on the attendance and

number of papers presented at annual meetings of the

American Ceramics Society [ 5 ], as fo 1 lows

Year 1 981 1 982 1 983 1 98il 1 985

At tendance 3850 3670 3690 5170 5700

No. of papers 750 760 890

' 1 1 00 1 035

We see that, in the past two years, attendance is up

about 45 percent and papers presented about 30 percent. In

short, the U.S. has now woken up to the potential of

Advanced Ceramics, and is beginning to respond to the

prospects of stiff foreign competition. But is our

response yet sufficient?

The Challenge ... and Some Responses

The answer to the question above is... "No.” It would

be nice to be able to report that the U.S. Advanced

Ceramics industry is beginning to develop and vigorously

market competitive pro duct s ... but , as yet, it is not so.

It may be that, ‘in part, this is because there are

still many U.S. industrial managers who believe that their

Japanese counterparts are overly optimistic about the early

impact of Advanced Ceramics in auto and other applications,

and that there is still plenty of time left before the

competition will heat up. In our view, these managers are

misreading the nature of the fierce competition between

Nissan and Toyota to be first with the auto application,

and between other giants, such as Toshiba, Showa Denka, and

Kyocera, to capture other market segments. The winner of

the auto race will be in a position to gain prestige and

market share by virtue of (a) superior engine performance

and economy, albeit only modest a't first, and (b) public

perception, molded by astute advertising, of the advantages

of going with the company with the best available technology. Now it is true that the latter advantage is at

present more important when marketing in Japan than in the

U.S. But the reputation in the U.S. of Japanese auto

manufacturers for quality and reliability is excellent, and

this would be further enhanced by evidence of technological

superiority. Conversely, the prospects for the sale of

U.S. autos abroad will be further reduced.

Comparable concerns can be expressed regarding the

development of Advanced Ceramics for electronic applications, tools, prostheses, etc. Again, U.S. companies

29
appear to be working against a more relaxed time frame than

their competitors. We believe this to be a losing strategy.

What then should U.S. industry be doing? The answer is

that it needs to get its act together and overcome what

Albert Bowers has termed the "commitment gap"... this being

defined as a "lack of national resolve to gain and maintain

(international) leadership [6]. Specifically, it must

identify the specific technical and marketing challenges to

be addressed, develop bold and focused R&D programs and

accelerated marketing schedules and strategies to meet

them. ..and then commit itself to beating both technical and

market i ng goals

Time is of the essence ... and so is attitude. Slogans

such as, "If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it," heard ad

nauseam around American industry over the past decade, are

pass^ for the internationally competitive situation in

which we now find ourselves. More appropriate might be

slogans such as "Good enough ain’t good enough," or "perfect today... and better tomorrow."

In short, the U.S. government and industry needs a new

working philosophy that recognizes that technology is

global and respects no borders, and that if we are to

maintain technological competitiveness, a fair share of

both domestic and international markets, and a stable and

growing economy, then we must meet and beat the world’s

best in their markets as well as our own. We must be

economically assertive, not protectionist. This will

require concerted action by industry, government, and

academe. And each of us associated with Advanced Ceramics

has a responsibility to see that the U.S. does not miss out

on the exciting opportunities offered by these new

materials. Here are some specific suggestions:

Industrial managers must accelerate their timetable for

the expected emergence of markets for Advanced Ceramics,

and set in motion efforts to produce imaginative products

against these advanced schedules. This, in turn, will

require R&D to be more strongly focused, and to be

concerned as much with production processes and product

design and performance as with improved materials

properties. The development of much closer relationships

between scientists and design engineers will be required,

with much stronger feedback and response than usually is

the case today. Managers should consider also the strategy

and conducting research and product development programs in

par a lie 1 . . . in contrast to the customary sequential conduct

of basic research, applied research, process development,

product development, etc. Japanese companies move more

swiftly to the marketplace by running some of these steps

30
in parallel, and with strong feedback loops. This approach

Is riskier, but the payoff can be early market access,

improved product identity, and enhanced market share.

The efficiency with which foreign competitors target

and address U.S. markets has been commented on by many

observers. For example, Aoki noted recently [7] that

Japanese firms now have 1600 branches or offices in the Los

Angeles area alone, and are adding to this number (almost)

dally. But there is nothing in their strategy that could

not be adopted equally well by U.S. corpor at i ons . . . g i ven a willingness to study the foreign market, learn the language

and culture, and commit to a long term relationship.

Companies such as Honeywell have used this approach in

Japan over the years, and thus are not now amongst those

calling for our government to develop tougher trading

policies.

A national marketing strategy for Advanced Ceramics

should involve the formation of an Advanced Ceramics Association, comparable to the Japanese Fine Ceramics Association [8]. The functions of this organization should

Include the development of a sense of identity, purpose and

momentum for the Industry through the convening of actionproducing meetings of its leaders, the collection and dissemination of technical and economic information, and the

establishment of international standards of performance.

The association should also work closely with the Department of Commerce and other Federal agencies to establish

coherent and effective strategies for accessing foreign

markets. Attention to export control issues is especially

needed .

The formation of U.S. based international trading companies by large banking organizations to facilitate marketing abroad also should be considered as an element of

national export strategy.

Industrial managers should also take the time to educate legislators to the needs and potentials of Advanced

Ceramics, and other technologies, without personal axegrinding, so that sound forward-looking legislation can be

enacted

They should also bring their perspectives and knowledge

to the workings of government committees and not, as at

present, leave these chores largely to the academics.

Valuable though professorial input is, it does not bring

the acumen of hands-on experience to the issues.

Since this contribution was prepared, such an organization,

the U.S. Advanced Ceramics Association (USACA) has been

formed, thanks to the initiative of Professor J. I. Mueller

[9].

31
Science teachers should be brought into industrial R&D

organizations for summer assignments, revitalizing their

skills and providing the enthusiasm and perspective needed

to ensure a flow of outstanding students into the materials

pro f ess i on

Industrial researchers must identify and capitalize

more swiftly on technical deve lopments ... regardless of

origin. Much excellent science is done in DOD and other

national laboratories, and abroad. In particular, the

results of R&D conducted in Japan and the Soviet Union

should not be overlooked.

Our perception of the present situation, however; is

that foreign literature, even when translated, is not

routinely studied. And travel to other laboratories, both

in the U.S. and abroad, is regarded by management as a prerequisite (or even a boondoggle!) instead of as one of the

fastest ways of acquiring new know.ledge and perspective...

and of preventing the costly and time consuming "reinvention of the wheel."

In this regard it is instructive to note that in 1980

Japan sent about 8800 scientists abroad, of which about

3500 came to North America. In the same year, only 730

foreign scientists visited Japan. Yet, in our experience,

Japanese scientists are every bit as open in discussing

their work with visitors as are their U.S. counter parts,

given time to overcome cultural differences. So this

opportunity for reversing the customary flow of in formation

is being missed.

In short, the time has come for U.S. researchers to

become more global in outlook, and to recognize that the

whole world (almost) is a source for ideas, as well as a sink for products.

National laboratories , and their funding organizations,

must step-up to their responsibility for identifying,

prioritizing, and committing critical masses of effort to

the rapid solution of problems pivotal to the development

of technologies underlying national competitiveness. Presently, though R&D in the national laboratories is often

first class, it also tends to be diffuse, and does not add

up in such a manner as to provide the bases for any quantum

jump advantages for U.S. industry. Some hard-nosed management will be required to change this situation.

In our view, the function of national laboratories is

both straightforward and cr i t i ca 1 . . . i t is to move important

developments through the stage where they are too large to

be conducted in universities but too risky to be pursued by

32
Industry. They should accept this responsibility with a self-imposed sense of urgency based on recognition of the

fact that there is a real national need for their efforts.

Industry, for its part, must work more closely with the

national laboratories, acting through Advisory Boards to

provide the laboratories* staffs with knowledge of its

generic needs and specific timetables, so permitting

Intelligent prioritization and long range planning by the

laborator ies . Until recently, however, most Advisory

Boards of national laboratories (and of their sponsoring

agencies) were composed primarily of academics, and thus

did not properly represent the views of the customers for

the laboratories’ product ... industry . Consequently, the

labs were out of touch with their market, always a senario

for disaster! This situation now appears to be changing as both parties recognize their mutual dependence.

Beyond doing its best to reduce the cost of money and

the national debt, the federal government can help develop

an enabling environment for innovation by positive acts

(legislation of Tr ust -Regulat ions as opposed to Anti-Trust,

tax Incentives, etc.) to encourage (a) the cooperation of

companies in joint R&D ventures and consortia, (b) the

import of knowledge and skilled immigrants, and (c) the

export of value-added products. We believe that the best

way for the U.S. to maintain international leadership and a sound fiscal condition is to run faster and smarter than

the best of the oppos i t i on . . . not simply to run ,well in

closed races against the local talent. The government can

help towards this objective in many ways, for example

(a) by facilitating the translation and dissemination of

foreign technical and marketing literature, whenever this

is not an economically viable business, (b) by reducing the

multilayer bureaucracy that saps the vitality of the

national laboratories, (c) by enunciating clear policies

with regard to such fields as energy, transportation, space

exploitation, etc., (d) by accelerating the transfer to

green card and subsequently citizen status of low-security

risk immigrants possessing high-level technical skills;

such persons constitute an underutilized national resource,

and (e) by developing programs to instill a greater

awareness in high school students of the enduring need for

engineers and applied scientists, and of their fundamental

role in generating the wealth of the nation.

In summary , the most important non-technical prerequisites to ensure for U.S. industry a health domestic and

international market for Advanced Ceramics include the development of (a) an enduring and vigorous sense of commitment to well-defined long-term product /mar ket goals by the

CEO's and boards of participating U.S. corporations, with

the full understanding and encouragement of the financial

community, (b) improved trust, understanding and mutual

respect between government and industry, brought about by

33
the Joint development of strategies to enhance our international competitiveness (a role for DOC), and (c) an

increased sense of urgency and responsibility in the total

scientific and engineering community for the future wellbeing of the nation [10], leading to a more discriminating

and economically responsible approach to the selection of

R&D projects, an increased willingness to undertake highrisk, high-payoff pr oj e ct s . . . r at her than to merely add in

incremental knowledge, and an enthusiastic involvement in

transferring results to profitable practice.

Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to acknowledge useful discussions with

many colleagues during the preparation of this

contribution. The writings and comments of H.K. Bowen,

R.W. Rice, R. Roy, S.J. Schneider, R.M. Spriggs, and

J.B. Wachtraan, Jr. were especially helpful.

References

1. Fine Cer ami cs-Annua 1 Report for Overseas Readers, Japan

Ceramics Association, Tokyo, Japan, March 1985, 6.

2. J. I. Mueller "Handicapping the World Derby for

Advanced Ceramics,” Cer’amic Bulletin, 6l ( 1 982) 588.

3. A.R.C. Westwood and Jan Skalny, "High Performance

Ceramics in the U.S. -Status 1984, ,Proc. MITI Conference

on High Performance Ceramics, Tokyo, November 1984, to

be published.

4. S. Ramo, The Bridge, National Academy of Engineering,

14 (1 984) 2.

5. R.M. Spriggs, private communication, 1985.

6. A. Bowers, NAE Symposium on Economics and Technology,

March 1985, to be published.

7. M. Aoki, ibid.

8. High Technology Ceramics in Japan, National Academy

Press, Washington, DC, 1984.

9. For information contact: S. Hellem, Executive

Director, USACA, Suite 900, 605 134th Street NW,

Washington, DC 20005.

10. D. Shapley and R. Roy, Lost at the Frontier, ISI Press, Philadelphia, 1985.

34
SESSION II:

INFORMATION

BASE

SESSION CHAIRMAN REMARKS

Lyle H. Schwartz

Institute for Materials Science and Engineering

National Bureau of Standards

As Director of the Institute for Materials Science and

Engineer ing--the NBS organization co-sponsoring this

conference, I wish to extend my personal welcome and

express my appreciation for the time each of you are

devoting to this conference. I sincerely believe that the

time will be well spent as we are taking a major step in

confronting the complex problem of U.S. industrial

competitiveness in the emerging business of advanced

ceramics.

Our interest at NBS in the advancement of high

technology materials, including ceramics is of course more

that peripheral or proforma. As you know NBS, as well as other Federal organizations have sizeable advanced ceramics

R&D programs underway so that we in government are vitally

concerned with industrial needs for basic long term

research and the directions industry is taking.

Universities have similar concerns, but with the added

mandate of assuring the provision of trained talent.

Currently, the U.S. University system turns out less than

500 ceramic science and engineering graduates each year,

including less than il0 Ph.D.'s. No comprehensive plan for

expansion of the advanced ceramics industry will be

complete without addressing the issue of increasing these

numbers. This dilemma is but one factor to consider in

assessing where the advanced ceramic industry is, and where

it is going.

In my view, and I am sure you agree, the technical

issues for advanced ceramics are clear. What remains to be

answered is how they can be resolved in an expeditious

manner sufficient to meet the competitive challenge while

still maintaining the traditional, but appropriate, roles

for industry, universities, and government. Basically, the

competitive challenge equates to one of cooperation and

coordination At present there is good ceramic research

going on, and more is planned, both in the private sector

and at the federal laboratories. These collectively add up

to a formidable research base with the universities and the

government focusing on "technology push" basic research,

and industry on "market pull" R&D. To make most effective

use of the limited manpower available it will become

increasingly important that communication be optimized

between those doing basic research and those doing product

development. Currently the advanced ceramic industry is

disaggregated and there is no central organizational group

or key spokesperson to represent the industrial views and

37
provide interchange with allied university and government

activities. Better coupling is required for the

Industry-unl versl ty-government triad to be effective and

this conference is intended to explore this precise

question.

The first session set the stage for the meeting. The

second session deals with the information base available

for assessing the status of the technology; and include

presentations on our competitive position and market

opportunities as well as R&D status and needs. These areas

have been the subject of several recent studies that could

provide substantial guidance to the advanced ceramics

industry.

38
D.S. COMPETITIVE POSITITDII IN ADVANCED CERAMXCS

Michael T. Kelley

Basic Indus t r i es --Int erna t i ona 1 Trade Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce

At no other time in our history has ceramics drawn such

worldwide attention. Advanced ceramics will be to the

1980’s what plastics were to the 1960's. It will be the

decade of the ceramics and basic industries revolution. In

recent years, efforts in technical research have

Intensified because of basic industry’s concern over rising

energy costs and scarcity and high cost of super alloy

metals. Basic and capital goods industries are undergoing

radical restructuring. They will either leave the

noncompetitive business they are in, or shift to a high-tech type of product line to stay competitive. What

competing basic industries are doing domestically and

internationally in chemicals, metals, and other smokestack

industries will have an impact on the marketplace 10 years

from now. The importance of high-tech in basic industries

and ceramic materials has been equally recognized

throughout the world. Several U.S. competitors, notably,

Japan, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and

Australia, are ambitiously working to develop world-class

commercial programs in basic industries and advanced

ceramics.

While the production of advanced ceramics —powders and

products, involves sophisticated chemical processing and is

closely dependent upon the quality and purity of the

compounds used, the basic raw mater ial--the silicate

compounds --are among the most abundant material in the

earth’s crust. We believe that the defense and economic

security of the nation depends upon our assured supply of

advanced ceramics.

Advanced ceramic products have many inherently useful

and unique properties, besides some negative attributes as

well. Advanced ceramics exhibit resistance to high

temperature, wear, and corrosion. They a-lso have superior

electrical insulation properties and high magnetic

permeability along with special optical and conductive

properties. In order to capitalize on these superior

attributes, however, substantial research and development

must be done before the negative properties of ceramics,

primarily their extreme brittleness and difficulty in

joining can be overcome.

Many ceramic products are still in the development

stage. The most important being adiabatic diesel engines

and auto parts. While they draw great promise, however,

their commercial introduction is still in the future. The

39
commercial applications of advanced ceramics have begun on

a small scale in some industrial components such as cutting

tools, engine nozzles, bioraedicals, and as replacement for

several important parts. The requirements for advanced

ceramics in turbines, tubocharges and high-efficiency

diesel engines require ceramic materials with quite

different properties, which have not yet been full

achieved.

Advanced ceramics are also used in products such as tiles for space vehicles, microwave and solar heating

devices, cylinders to store atomic and chemical waste,

electrodes for corrosive liquid electrolytes,

microprocessors, solar energy photovoltaic cells, gas and

oil drilling valves, armored tanks, motor plates and

shields, and a myriad of other products.

A vast new market for ceramics is expected -to open up

in automobiles and temperature-sensing and

temperature-control devices. The success of the advanced

ceramics industry depends upon how quickly R&D can

successfully develop ceramic components in different end

uses

The electrical properties of ceramics are already

heavily exploited in electronics, particularly in

capacitors and integrated circuit substrates, and the

applications are still expanding. Advanced

electronic/photonic/magnetic ceramics used in the defense

area are vital to super computers in supporting signal

sensing and processing. In the civilian area, they are

becoming equally vital in electronics, communications,

space technology, automated production systems, and in

robotics.

Today, the electronic component s /e le ct ri ca 1 segment of

the advanced ceramics business is by far the largest and

most developed sector. The U.S. market for electronic and

electrical products was estimated at more than $4 billion

in 1984 and is expected to increase about 20 percent in

1 985.

Although the United States had enjoyed a prominent

position and enviable reputation in advanced ceramics

technologically, much of our advanced ceramics industry is

behind its Japanese counterparts. This has occurred

because the Japanese have been able to take a development

project to a commercial stage considerably faster than most

U.S. companies. The Japanese rationale in international

marketing is that a firm with an early internal successful

entry will have a better chance of international

competitive edge. The cooperation between Japanese

producers and end users helps them to resolve design or defective raw material problems. Their internal

cooperative system has been Instrumental in helping them to

40
capture the International markets. Similar cooperation is

required in the United States between the advanced ceramic

producers and the consumers to go from research stage to

comm ere ialization.

Motivated by its lack of indigenous supplies of energy

and scarce metals, Japan has mounted a determined,

we 11- coord inated research and development effort to

establish itself in--and, perhaps to dom inate--ad vanced

ceramics. Unlike the United States, the Japanese advanced

ceramics makers are a heterogeneous group. They Include

traditional ceramics manufacturers, motor vehicle

manufacturers, and electronic systems manufacturers, as well as chemical and metals companies. Japanese producers

of advanced ceramics for electronics are thought to be more

horizontally integrated across a number of electronic

ceramics applications than their U.S. counterparts. Most

firms in Japan that are involved in a number of ceramics

products are typically large systems producers such as Toyota and Toshiba, with only one exception, Kyoto

Ceramics (Kyocera in the United States). It manufacturers

advanced ceramics heat engines and parts, some of which are

currently commercialized. Both their spark plugs and

precombustion chambers are used by Isuzu in auto diesel

engines. Other applications for Kyoto's advanced ceramics

products include cutting tools, capacitors, and most

notably, packaging for integrated circuits, where the

company accounts for nearly two-thirds of world open market

sales.

Japan is said to hold a 10-to-1 lead over the United

States in the number of patents issued in advanced

ceramics. In multilayer capacitors, gas sensors and

cutting tool R&D, the Japanese industry is believed to

focus heavily on characterizing and optimizing new material

components. Their R&D led to more and more patentable

inventions into ceramic powders. High-tech advanced

ceramics industries in Japan have benefited from government

targeting and support. The Japanese Ministry of

International Trade and Industry (MITI) coordinates the

research activities between the universities and the

companies to avoid duplication and to minimize research

dollars. It also provides research results to all

companies concerned with rapid dissemination of basic

technical information and engineering design. Their

forecast calls for a $25 billion market in advanced

ceramics by the year 2000. MITI's targeting techniques

Include home market protection, favorable tax policies,

suspension of antitrust laws for emerging high-tech

Industries and research and financial assistance.

Additional R&D is encouraged in the new fields that have

promise of large pay-offs.

41
The United Kingdom was considered the world leader in

advanced ceramics until about 15 years ago. Major budget

reductions in British Government programs have slowed down

British activities in advanced ceramics. Lucas, the first

automotive components firm in the United Kingdom, invented

the hot-pressed silicon nitride (sialon) during the 1960’s

for gas turbine applications. Sialons applications

included car engine components, extrusion dies and metal

cutting. Lucas produced diesel engine tappets, which

showed virtually no wear after extended operations. Small

energy savings were also obtained. The United Kingdom also

produced slip-cast crucibles for the metal casting

industry. Long-term medical applications included

long-life artificial hip and knee joints.

Recently, a Japanese company, Shim-etsun announced a new plant for the manufacture of silicon in Scotland, with

British collaboration. West Germany is fairly active among

the European countries in advanced ceramics research.

Their industrial engineering research and development

budget over the past 10 years was at a total level of

nearly 100 million marks ($40 to $50 million). Currently,

the German government and the industry are jointly

attempting to form an R&D program in energy and automobile

engines. The Ministry of Research and Technology (BMFT) is

supporting a program dealing with advanced ceramics

components for vehicular gas turbines. Almost half of the

R&D funding is provided by the industry. Germany is known

for its rapid growth and they have the potential to catch

up with the United States and Japan in advanced ceramics

R&D.

The French Ministry of Industry and Research recently

announced the start of top-priority research program for

new advanced ceramics materials and powders. The proposed

funding for this program is over 1 billion francs, spread

over 3 years. The areas to be covered include advanced

ceramics, composites, technical polymers, and amorphous

materials. France has successfully penetrated the advanced

ceramics market in Europe and has several products for

civilian and defense uses; notable among them are:

small-diameter tubing for electrical insulation;

f i ber -et -mi ca for lamination and un 1 -d irect i ona 1- sheet s

In a similar fashion to some U.S. international chemical

companies, the Rhone-Poulen of France has ventured in the

production of silicon and silicon compounds for use in

photo-electric cells and for electronics applications.

A sense of urgency over Europe’s loss of competitiveness in high technology trade led to the opening of the

Belgium Technology International Fair in March 1985. The

fair, promoted as the largest of its kind in Europe, served

as a showpiece for the hundreds of high technology

industries, especially advanced ceramics, within Europe.

Some 730 companies and research groups set up high exhibits

42
In the fair. Europe’s continuing need to close the

technology gap with the United States and Japan has been

the main concern behind the exposition. Between 1970 and

1982, the European Economic Community (EEC) lost 17

percentage points of world market share in high technology

products, while the United States and Japan gained 36 and

38 points, respectively. A European strategic 5~year

program for R&D in high-technology was approved with a budget of about $1 billion, half of which is to come from

the EEC Government budget and the other half from industry.

Canada, Sweden, and Australia do not intend to be left

behind in the advanced ceramics race. They too have a number of R&D projects in advanced ceramics for auto and

other uses. Australian manufacturers are presently

exporting ceramic powders to the United States for the

manufacture of electronic components. The Australian

Ceramics Society and a number of companies have approached

us for information on the advanced ceramics industry in the

United States. Recently, the representatives of two leading

Australian companies visited DOC for assistance in setting

up a manufacturing facility in the United States. They are

interested in either an outright purchase of a U.S.

facility or in starting a joint venture with a U.S. firm,

which has knowledge of advanced ceramic product

manufacturing.

The advanced ceramics industry in the United States is

highly fragmented and there is little cooperation among

companies. The U.S. companies engaged in the advanced

ceramics do not want to be bound by national research

efforts or by national boundaries. They are looking for

international markets, competitive advantages in

manufacturing within or outside the United States, and are

even ready to acquire technology from abroad. Recently, GM

announced its plan to manufacture components and vehicles

worldwide in efficient models, using its own or Japanese

technology. With its recent affiliation with Isuzu, which

has started using advanced ceramic parts in the

automobiles, GM intends to assemble trucks in the Peoples’

Republic of China and eight other countries: Australia,

New Zealand, Singapore, the Philippines, South Korea, Hong

Kong, and Taiwan. GM-Isuzu Diesel engines will soon be

manufactured in Indonesia. In addition they have

established a number of component manufacturing joint

ventures in South Korea.

Dupont’s chairman recently announced that his company

is strengthening and building worldwide business in high

growth areas such as electronics, high performance fibers,

and other materials. Unlike Japan, Dupont does not want to

be tied to the national R&D efforts or national production

alone.

43
U.S. defense agencies, are heavily involved in advanced

ceramics research. Heat engines for defense use represent

the only major applications where government R&D funding is

playing a major role. At present, the government defense

agencies alone contribute about one-half of the estimated

$100 to $1^0 million per year devoted to ceramic heat

engine research in the country. Contribution from the

auto industry in R8tD does not appear to be significant. A

major effort on the part of industry is required to

maintain our leadership in the field of advanced ceramics

for defense and to catch up in development in

commercialization for civilian purposes.

Even the determination of the size and growth in

advanced ceramics industry in the United States is made

imprecise because of: (1) lack of Standard Industrial

Classifications for advanced ceramics powders and products;

(2) the unwillingness of large corporations to identify

figures for their smaller advanced ceramics products

separately; and (3) the disclosure act, which prohibits

publication of data from three or less companies, or when

one company is the major producer in the group.

The notion that American basic industries are dying is

probably wrong. What you will most likely see is the basic

and capital goods industries undergoing radical

restructur ing. Most of the high-technology applications

and the majority of the materials substitutions are taking

place in basic industries. The primary mission of the

Basic Industries Division at the Commerce Department is to

implement and monitor the changes through trade and

industry analysis, trade promotions, and by developing

government policies and legislation.

The DOC is closely watching growth and development in

advanced ceramics. We are cooperating with our Science and

Electronics group, whose industries are the largest users

of advanced ceramics components, to study the U.S.

competitive situation. We have met with the U.S. auto

manufacturers in Detroit to discuss their plans for new

ceramic applications, and we have been attending technical

sessions and seminars to keep ourselves aware of the latest

developments and growth potentials in this industry.

Our technical experts have prepared a number of

internal documents and have recently published a Commerce

competitive assessment which outlines the Issues facing the

U.S. advanced ceramics Industry. A chapter on advanced

ceramics in our 1985 Annual Industrial Outlook publication

also was prepared. Our objective is to Inform U.S.

advanced ceramic companies of the latest developments and

market potentials in order to encourage greater Interest in

a U.S. based industry.

44
TECHNOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENTS OF ADVANCED CERAMICS

S. L. Blum and Stephen H. Kalos

Charles River Associates Incorporated

Boston, Massachusetts

Background and Introduction

Great interest has been shown in advanced or hightechnology ceramic materials in recent years, both in the

United States and abroad. The timing of the recent surge

of interest in advanced ceramics represents something of a marriage between need and opportunity. The need, or

d-emand, for materials with the properties exhibited by

advanced ceramics is greater than ever due to changes in

the technologies of potential using sectors, as well as in

the supply of key raw materials to those sectors. For

example, the availability of cheap microprocessors and

industrial robots increases the need or demand for many

kinds of sensors, and thus increases industrial interest in

ceramic materials with specialized sensing properties. On

the opportunity, or supply side, advances in ceramics

process technology offer hope that critical reliability,

cost, and reproducib il ity barriers that impede the commercial Introduction and/or adaption of many advanced ceramic

products may be overcome in the relatively near future.

This paper summarizes the findings and conclusions of a study by Charles River Associates Incorporated (CRA) for

the National Bureau of Standards that assesses the expected

economic impacts of technological advances in advanced

ceramics and the remaining technological barriers. The

study examined five specific existing and potential applications of advanced ceramic materials: heat engine components (e.g., turbocharger rotors); multilayer ceramic

capacitors; integrated optic devices (e.g., guided-light

switches and modulators); gas sensors; and cutting tools.

These five cases are not intended to encompass the only

promising application areas of advanced ceramic materials

and products; rather, they are meant to exemplify five

leading representative application areas from which implications can be drawn concerning major technological

barriers generic to classes of advanced ceramics.

Technological Barriers that Need to be Overcome

A number of important technological barriers were identified in the CRA study. At a general level, the key

barriers to be overcome before the full potential of

advanced ceramics can be achieved lie in the areas of production cost, reliability in service, and reproducibility

in manufacture. In some cases these barriers are severe

enough to retard commercialization (e.g., ceramic heat

engines). In other cases commer c la 1 i zat i on has occurred.

45
but the barriers serve to limit market penetration (e.g.,

cutting tools). The severity of the technological barriers

and hence the likely timing of their removal varies considerably across ceramic application areas. Moreover, the

relative importance of cost, reliability, and reproducibility also varies across the applications examined.

For example, multilayer capacitors is an application of

advanced ceramics that has already achieved wide commercial

diffusion. The most important barriers remaining in the

capacitor area are cost -re lated . Overcoming these barriers

will have relatively little impact on the diffusion of

capacitors, which is already significant. However, because

of the magnitude of sales of multilayer ceramic capacitors,

substantial economy wide savings may result from incremental

innovation in production processes in the near term.

Unlike the case of capacitors, ceramic gas sensors and

cutting tools have achieved only limited diffusion to date.

Here the key barriers impeding rapid diffusion of ceramic

technology are performance-related rather than costrelated, although the nature of the barriers differs across

these two cases. Barriers limiting the reliability of

ceramic cutting tools in service and barriers limiting the

select ivity (ability to distinguish among different gases)

are the key barriers that inhibit diffusion of these

products. Because of the relatively limited magnitude of

current sales, the economic impacts of overcoming these

diffusion-impeding barriers are expected to be relatively

modest for the remainder of this decade. However, significant productivity benefits may result in the 1990s from the

timely removal of these barriers.

In the two other cases examined, heat engines and

integrated optics, the technological barriers are more

severe and need to be overcome before commercialization can

be achieved. This is particularly true for heat engines,

where commercialization cannot be achieved until the reliability of ceramic parts is improved to commercially

acceptable levels. Because of these barriers it is

expected to be the end of the 1980s, at the earliest,

before ceramic heat engine parts and integrated optic

devices are seriously produced on a commercial basis and

begin to diffuse. Thus, although both types of ceramic

products offer significant productivity benefits, substantial aggregate cost savings resulting from the development

of these technologies are not expected to accrue until the

late 1990s at the earliest.

The Potential for Industry Growth

The advanced ceramics industry is expected to grow very rapidly through the end of this century, both in the United

States and abroad. Estimates of 1982 U.S. consumption of

advanced ceramic components, along with projections to 1990

and 2000, are given in Table 1 for the five application

46
areas analyzed. In the United States, consumption of

advanced ceramic products In these five application areas

was estimated to be $365 million in 1982. The bulk of this

($350 million) was accounted for by multilayer ceramic

capacitors, the only r e la t i ve ly lar ge existing advanced

ceramic market segment analyzed. By the year 2000, U.S.

consumption of advanced ceramics for these five application

areas combined is projected to grow to approximately $

billion, a 14 percent average annual compound growth rate.

No consistent, reliable source exists for market data

for advanced ceramic products. Sales data must be

developed through a variety of sources, including review of

trade press and industry interviews. Accordingly, there is

considerable variation among sources in estimates of

historic and current levels of sales of advanced ceramic

products. Table 2 presents two sets of estimates of 1980

advanced ceramic sales with projections into the 1990s

drawn from the open literature. The two estimates were

developed by Kent Bowen of MIT and by the U.S. Department

of Commerce.

Bowen estimates that U.S. shipments of advanced ceramic

materials and components were $1.5 billion in 1980. given

the rjste of growth in the Industry, this estimate is

consistent with unpublished estimates of U.S. advanced

ceramic sales of about $2 billion in 1983. Bowen projects

that U.S. shipments will reach over $7 billion by 1995.

This represents an average annual growth rate of nearly

11 percent. If this average rate of growth were to

continue beyond 1995, U.S. shipments would reach

approximately $10 billion by 2000. The Bowen data indicate

that the United States is the second leading advanced

ceramic producing nation in the world (with a 35 percent

share of world sales), behind Japan (with a 45 percent

market s hare )

The DOC figures represent an attempt to estimate and

project only the value added by ceramic processing. This

difference is reflected in their considerably smaller

estimates and projections of U.S. advanced ceramic

shipments. What is striking in comparing the Bowen and DOC

projection is the close agreement between the two in the

projected growth rates in U.S. shipments. The Department

of Commerce projects U.S. shipments of advanced ceramic

materials and products to grow at an average annual rate of

12 percent from 1980 to 2000. This compares to the

11 percent average annual growth rate projected by Bowen

for 1980 to 1995. Charles River Associates projected

slightly more rapid growth, 14 percent per year on average,

for the aggregate of the five applications studied. This

more rapid projected growth reflects the fact that

relatively high-growth application areas were selected for

study
Potential Savings of Critical Materials

Potential savings of critical materials such as tantalum, cobalt, chromium, and nickel through the substitution

of advanced ceramics were found to be a secondary benefit,

much less important than the productivity gains expected

to result from advanced ceramic products. This is particularly true in the case of structural ceramics, where it is

projected that the amount of those critical materials that

can be expected to be displaced by advanced ceramic

materials by the end of the century is at best quite modest

(e.g., less than 10 percent of annual U.S. consumption).

However, the aggregate dollar total for all critical

materials saved could be quite large.

International Differences in Competitive Strategy

How U.S. industry fares in world markets for advanced

ceramic products will depend in large measure on the relative success of 'the competitive strategies employed by U.S.

ceramic firms. Ceramic producers differentiate themselves

along a number of strategic dimensions which include, but

are not limited to: level of resources devoted to R&D and

the focus of that R&D; the degree of integration of the

firm; and the willingness to risk early introduction of a product in order to gain experience in product performance

and processing..

Table 3 presents proxy data for the level of R&D effort

in advanced ceramics in the United States, Japan, and

Western Europe. The table indicates that Japan is

investing more heavily than the United States in all

application areas examined except integrated optics. The

Japanese are thought to be increasing their R&D effort

rapidly in that area, however, and may soon catch up to or pass the United States, at least in annual R&D input if not

in R&D success.

Researchers in the field believe that the United States

holds the lead in basic research and generic technology in

most of these application areas. This is particularly true

of heat engines, integrated optics, and multilayer

capacitors. It is, however, unclear how much of a strategic advantage this lead offers to U.S. firms.

Japanese firms may be as capable as U.S. firms of applying

basic research results and generic technology developed in

the United States. Based on interviews with U.S.

researchers, it appears that Japanese industrial R&D is

aimed relatively more heavily at incremental improvements

in process technology and materials composition than is

U.S. R&D. If true, such a strategy appears aimed at

optimizing existing generic tech.nology in order to shorten

the time frame in which commercialization of new products

take place, with early commercialization used as a device

to gain production experience and thereby reduce market

prices.

48
There la a wide range of- variation in the degree of

horizontal Integration (i.e., the degree to which firms

produce ceramic products in multiple application areas)

among companies in the United States, Japan, and Western

Europe. Some companies remain relatively specialized,

whereas other companies pursue more aggressive integration

strategies. However, Japanese ceramic firms appear to be

more aggressive than their U.S. counterparts in integrating

hor 1 zonta lly

This is particularly true of Kyoto Ceramics. The

world's largest producer of ceramic packaging for

integrated circuits, and a leading producer of ceramic

capacitors, Kyoto appears to be following a strategy of

attempting to attain a leadership position in structural

ceramics through borrowing technology from the electronic

applications in which it is involved. Other leading

Japanese manufacturers of electronic ceramics that have

become involved in structural ceramics include Sumitomo

Electric Industries, Toshiba, Mitsubishi, and NGK Spark

Plug. Although some U.S. companies involved in structural

ceramics are also involved in electronic ceramics, these

firms typically do not have nearly the production

experience of a company like Kyoto in electronic ceramics.

Since completing this study, we have observed a trend

towards greater diversification or horizontal integration

on the part of U.S. advanced ceramics producers. For

example, traditional structural ceramic producers such as

Norton and Carborundum are exploring entry into production

of electronic ceramic products. Similarly, IBM recently

hired its first structural ceramic engineer. This trend is

being reinforced by the entry into the advanced ceramic

Industry of large, diversified chemical and materials

companies such as Alcoa, Cabot, DuPont, and W. R. Grace.

These companies have both the broad technical base and the

financial capabilities required to pursue an aggressive

horizontal integration strategy if real possibilities of

technological spillovers truly exist. However, while we

envision a number of large, diversified players in the

future, the U.S. advanced ceramics industry will continue

for some time to be char act er i zed by many niche producers.

Another important strategic distinction between the

Japanese and U.S. advanced ceramics industries is that some

Japanese firms are highly aggressive in seeking early

commercialization of advanced ceramic products. This

strategy is based on the theory that there will be a steep

learning curve in the manufacture of advanced ceramic

components and powders. If true, this would endow

significant manufacturing cost and possibly reliability

advantages to firms with greater cumulative production

volumes (e.g., early, successful entrants). Such a strategy is not without its risks. In particular, the

early entrant bears the risk that the performance of the

49
new product will not meet users’ expectations. Considerable goodwill, not to mention investment of time and money,

may be lost as a result of premature entry.

This strategy of early commercialization is especially

evident in the heat engine and integrated optics examples.

Kyoto currently produces two ceramic engine parts on a limited commercial basis. These parts —glow plugs and

pr ecorabust i on chambers --are used by Isuzu in some of its

diesel engines and represent the first two structural

ceramic parts to be used in heat engines on a commercial

basis. Toshiba recently introduced the first commercially

available integrated optic device, a spectrum analyzer.

Although U.S. firms are also working in this area, none

have been willing to risk commercial introduction until

their products are refined further.

Summary

Advanced ceramics represents a relatively new technology with potential for rapid technological advance and

resulting market growth. The achievement o_f this technological advance would provide substantial leverage on productivity. Depending on how rapidly the technology develops

in the United States versus the rest of the world and on

how well U.S. manufacturers strategically position

themselves, advances in advanced ceramics may also have important leveraging effects on U.S. competitiveness in world

markets. The dependence of the United States on foreign

sources of supply for critical materials will also be

reduced, although to a limited degree, by substitution of

ceramics for these other materials. However, a number of

difficult technological problems must be overcome in a timely fashion in order to achieve these benefits.

50
Table 1

U.S. CONSUMPTION OF ADVANCED CERAMICS BY APPLICATION AREA:

1 982, 1 990,' and 2000

(Millions of Dollars)

Year

Appl 1 cation 1 982 1 990 2000

Multilayer Capacitor

( Sh ipments

)

350 970 1580

Cutting Tools 1 0 35 1 60

Gas Sensors 5 30-40 1 85-2.50

Heat Engine Parts -- 25-45 920-1,300

Integrated Optic Devices — 5-1 0 91 0

Total for Five Selected

Application Areas

365 1065-1 1 1

0

3755-4200

NOTE: Prices for these advanced ceramic products are

expected to decline over part or all of this time

period. Therefore, these projections, which are

expressed in current dollars, may understate real

growth to some degree.

SOURCE: Charles River Associates, 1984.

51
52
Table 2

U.S. AND WORLD SHIPMENTS OF ADVANCED CERAMICS:

1980, 1990, 1995 and 2000

(Millions of Dollars)

Source

Country or Region 1 980

Year

1 990 1 995 2000

Bowen * United States 1 , 500 5, 000 7,500 —

Japan 1 , 900 6, 5 00 9 , 000 —

Free World 4,100 1 2 , 000 17, 000 —

U.S. United States 601 2,531 — 5, 895

Department

of Commerce

*The Bowen and Department of Commerce estimates represent

somewhat different measures of ceramic shipments. The

Bowen estimates are intended to measure the full value of

shipments of advanced ceramic materials and components.

The Department of Commerce estimates represent a value

added by ceramic processing measure. That is, the

nonceramlc portions of advanced ceramic products have been

subtracted

SOURCES: Bowen estimates and projections are from

J. B. Wachtman. December 198^. "Ceramic

Fever-- Advanced Ceramics in Japan." Ceramic

Industry 121, 6.

U.S. Department of Commerce. March 1984. _A Competitive Assessment of the U.S. Advanced

Ceramic Industry. Washington, D.C.

53
INTERNATIONAL

COMPARISON

OF

R&D

EFFORTS

IN

ADVANCED

CERAMICS

BY

APPLICATION

AREA • •a

n o •> CO n L. CM « o « c «o o e 0) A

(0 <0 9 e o £ o jj « O £ A

4^ CO c iH c <-4 £ a o • 0) (0 (9 £ CO

L. o “O c £ £ c • (0 . 0> « <9 >« £ •H m 9 3 O C

•a ^4 CO O.

O <9 * 9) L«

9) <i) 5 c O t.

B 0) •— o n

a 9 o &. o c. e A o (b n c 3 e 0) o <0 o u c. t. E C (Q ca <3 > 4J o 1-^ 3 3 ffl >» V CO A £ U £ >> 4) i-H •• c. £

91

A c £ £ »5 >* T3

A o c 01 (0 iH <0 (0 ® i-t 09 a £ C

c. £i 0) «) s £ *J t. 4J 3 A

4> 4^

O > n c.

V

O

A

A c.

O Q. o t. <o a> o 1. c. £ A c o £ X

n z a. .j C3 (0 CL CO

C 9 L. < A o

:z co

T3 CO A c •o •• -o c •• o c. • c A c C (b •£ •o c A o 9 3 A 3 09 A *•4 3 £ Va <M O n O A A A B O 00 C c a- A n c A O £ c c A 0\ A • • £ £ 3C £ o 3C 9 £ £ £ c o A c c •• A c •— ir\ c C £ 3 £ A 3 m £ £ •• *«• 3 C. A 0

CO £ COO o A £ £ A

90 o A (JO -O

A «- (JO c CA > A

A

A c C rH •o (3. c •o £ c A C O Oi cn A A

<b -• o A o A T3 -* £ £ C. o. X3 £ £ «-• A •o £ £ «-> C £ £ •a T3 C O' 3

(0CO C. c £ OAC C. c A >> £ A O C A A O c A C. A A A £ £

O. £ 9 C.

A O. £ 9 C.

A £ A

A O. £ A

O £ o n A C <n A i. A £ >> A A O £ C

•o C. £ •o (. £ A Q.

A £ £ 00A

a

A

B eo

a

A

B

a

A C.

O • • A C. a.

•0

A > 3 c •a <b > 3 AC t.A •a o £ A

X

a: <n

O

C

A a: 91

O

C Oi £ C3

a a: CNJ CO O. CO

A

C.

(b

A c

09

A o

>> >*

pH

C- C. c

91 09

AA

09 O. a. £ C. s

4J o c. •L>

A

<0 c A c A o 4J o A o A >> CO £ >. C.o c. •o c. pH E A >»

09C

A

a £

4J E A CJ. E o A £ c c £ c tr» *> C O o A 9 »— O >• £ E C. A £ £ £ £ A o t- £ o £ £ X A

4^

O £ 4^>

A £ O Ss

B £ £ E C. o E tr» O a c. O m C £ a A 2 <M •4^ Ql •< Qi co

4-> <0oa o

(0o.

<T3 OJO

Q. < t.

0)>»

<T3

Coo

0)

cu

91

L.o9) c

0) CO9)

c:j

o. o> ooH

bOC

4-> 3

CJ

<0o

•pH o

o. o

"O

Q) 4Ju

bO

0)

54

SOURCE:

Charles

River

Associates,

1984
MARKET OPPORTTJinTIES

J. J. Harwood

Energy Conversion Devices, Inc.

and

D. W. Lee

A. D. Little Inc.

Introduction

In late 1983 the Industrial Research Institute (IRI)

entered into a Cooperative Research Agreement^ with the

Economic Development Administration of the Department of

Commerce to undertake a series of business assessments of

selected industrial sectors.

The primary purpose of each assessment was to provide a statistical and qualitative framework to enable

Identification of technical opportunities that might make

each of the above sectors more competitive in worldwide

markets and speed up commercialization of advanced

technologies. The technologies sought were to be amenable

to development through ‘the use of Research and Development

Limited Partnerships.

The assessment of each of the ^industries listed (or

particular selected segments) have been issued and are

available through the National Technical Information

Service.

This paper summarized a report prepared by A.D. Little,

under contract to IRI, on the "Assessment of the Advanced

Ceramics Industry-Competition and the Role of Technology."

The A.D. Little Study was conducted under the leadership of

Dr. W. Lee. J.J. Harwood acted as the study project

manager for the IRI.

This study focused on:

(a) the nature of advanced ceramic industrial segments and

the competitive and market dynamics at play;

(b) past and emerging trends in industry performance and

competitiveness and the influence of emerging

technological developments;

^Project No. RED-80-3-G-83~5( 99-7-1 361 1 )

55
(c) key factors influencing the size and growth potential

of advanced ceramic markets and the identification of

key and pacing technologies associated with each market

segment, and finally;

(d) the preliminary ident i f i cat i on of areas which

represented RDLP opportunities.

Nature of Advanced Ceramic Industry

Electronic and electrical products predominate in the

marketplace and will continue to do so in the foreseeable

future. The technologies are relatively mature and new

developments are expected to be evo lut ionar y . But the

driving force for much of the "ceramic fever" and national

programs is the long range future potential for ceramic

heat engines, yet it is unlikely that any significant

markets for gas turbine engines or diesel components will

develop within the next decade. Wear markets (seals,

valves, cutting tools, etc.) represent the most likely near

term business opportunities for the growth of the

structural ceramics industry into a viable status. It was

concluded that the areas where accelerated technology

development could have the most impact on international

competition in advanced ceramics Include the

mechan 1 ca 1/s tr*uct ur a 1 segment and selected products and

technologies in the electronic segment.

Past and Emerging Trends^

A pro duct -te chno lo gy matrix (abbreviated in Exhibit 1)

was prepared to examine the relationship between

technologies and specific industry and product segments.

Key factors affecting the future position of the

e lect ron i c/e lect r 1 ca 1 segment will be cost reduction and

improved materials and processing, in particular automated

processing. Improved powder processes, involving such

techniques as sol-gel, gas phase reactions and chemical

precipitations as routes to nonaggloraer ated (< 1 pm),

nearly monodispersed particles are seen as pacing

technologies in a range of structural and mechanical

products

Heat engine components are still in an embryonic stage.

They do not as yet comprise a market sector. Technical

developments more than manufacturing or marketing factors

appear to provide the competitive edge. Key factors

affecting the future competitive situation will be improved

materials, processing, and manufacturing reliability in high

volume operations.

Prevailing barriers in growth potential in worldwide

markets of advanced ceramic market segments Involve:

56
(a) Production costs--both ceramic powders and finished

components

(b) Development of low cost, high purity methods of powder

synthesis, which can be scaled up for high volume

production;

(c) Improvements in fracture toughness and reliability of

ceramic products;

(d) Near net shape fabrication methods —capable of making

parts at reasonable cost, with high reliability,

consistency, and quality control, requiring minimum

finishing and the capability for automated processing;

(e) Joining methods for bonding of ceramic shapes;

(f) Nondestructive evaluation methods capable of detecting

critical flaw sizes and capable of being installed into

on-line fabricating systems;

(g) Characterization of ceramic materials and under s t an d in

g

of process dependent, time dependent, and surface

dependent properties. Development of standardized

testing techniques; and

(h) Industrial experience in manufactur ing advanced ceramic

hardware and reliable knowledge of performance behavior

of ceramic components in industrial service.

The findings of the market segment assessments

indicated that accelerated technological development in at

least two industry segments and in one pacing technology

could significantly enhance the U.S. industrial performance

and competitive position.

Wear Components --to overcome market fragmentation which

currently impedes commercialization and industrial growth.

Sensors —their generic end use applications and

importance to robotics, automation, fuel management, and

control systems support this as a significant growth area.

Powder Processes --impro ved powder characteristics are

key to growth and success in almost all advanced ceramic

market areas. This is a pacing technology which requires

coherent programs and the best of industrial expertise.

One key area in which the emerging American advanced

ceramic industry is lagging behind Japan is in the

application of known ceramics technology and materials into

hardware and simulated/real production and performance

proveout. More mature learning curve experience underlies

57
Japanese industrial program with rapidly increasing

knowledge about manufactur ing and performance issues and

problems and realistic solutions.

Concluding Remarks

The advanced ceramic industry is a highly fragmented

one in terms of the products, participants and end use

markets and applications. The utilization of advanced

ceramics depends, by and large, on the unique combination

of electronic and mechanical properties and to a lesser

extent on their high temperature stability. Electronic end

uses resulting from the insulating, magnetic,

f erroelectric, and conductivity properties constitute the

major markets, many of which are mature. Applications of

advanced ceramics based on their structural or mechanical

properties, per se, are smaller in number but represent

significantly greater potential for future growth.

A key factor in the industry is the emergence of

foreign competition in the development of structural and

mechanical ceramic materials for heat engines and

industrial applications. Japan is seen as a major threat

in this segment and it is of concern that Japanese

technology and products will become as dominant in this

segment as they are presently in several major electronic

segments of the advanced ceramics industry.

The fragmented nature of the wear component market

(excluding heat engine wear applications) and the structure

of the component supplier, equipment manufacturer and the

end user has, in many ways, inhibits the integrated

technological development that is necessary to address

this market. Few industry participants have the requisite

understanding of material properties, component

fabrication, design and end user conditions to address the

problems. Basic understanding of wear mechanisms, micro

and macro structural effects and design criteria are

required. Japanese competitors have integrated

capabilities either internally or through joint ventures.

In all these key and pacing technologies, the Japanese

competition appears to be moving ahead rapidly. They have

aggressively pursued "thin markets,” i.e. small specialized

market segments where customers are willing to acquire

products embodying new technology even though the cost may

be somewhat greater than existing products. The Japanese

ceramic suppliers thus gain valuable technical and

production experience which can be translated to product

opportunities in larger future markets. This strategy is

expected to result in the transfer of wear component

technology to heat engines if that potentially larger but

longer term market develops. The result of a lagging

technology development in the key and pacing technologies

for industrial wear components in the U.S. could eventually

58
impact the domestic industry’s position in the future

market for heat engine components. The accelerated

development of selected pacing technologies in the U.S.

could potentially Increase the U.S. shares of the estimated

$ 1

it billion U.S. market (1 995 ) for industrial wear

components as the result of significantly improved

materials, manu fa ct ur 1 n g process and hardware at a competitive cost.

59
ADVANCED

CERAMIC

PRODUCT/

TECHNOLOGY

MATRIX

60
Advanced Ceramic Market Segments

Mechanical/structural Segments

• Heat Engine Components

• Ceramic Cutting Tools

• Pump/Valve Components

• Wear Components

Electronic/ Electrical Segments

• 1C Packages

i •Substrates

• Capacitors

• Hard Ferrites

• Soft Ferrites

• Varistors

• Thermistors

• Piezoelectrics

• Sensors

EXHIBIT 2

61
62
SESSION III:

COOPERATIVE

MECHANISMS &

RESPONSE

FORCES OF CHANGE IN THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR

D. Bruce Merrifield

Office of Productivity, Technology and Innovation

U.S. Department of Commerce

The United States has created in recent years a historically unique climate for investment and

entrepreneurial growth. Failure to fully understand and

appreciate the factors that have made this possible could

easily lead to their dilution with very unfortunate

consequences. This climate now needs to be further

strengthened, in order to take full advantage of our basic

knowledge in materials, in electronics, in biosystems and

many other areas of advanced technology.

The basic understanding is that technology now drives

all the world economies, and literally, for the first time

in history, offers unparalleled opportunities for the

continuous creation of new wealth and a rapid rise in

quality of life for all nations.

o About 90 percent of all scientific knowledge has been

generated in the last 30 years, a major proportion of

it in the United States.

o The 'knowledge pool will double again by the end of

the century rapidly compressing life cycles of

products and processes to less than 5 to 10 years.

o Technology development will increasingly become a worldwide phenomenon, with all nations participating

in very competitive global markets.

o Developing nations will capture major shares of those

industrial markets where their inexpensive labor and

natural resources provide them with an overwhelming

advantage

o The "targeting strategy" first modeled by the

Japanese and now being copied by many other nations

will continue to affect many industries

(semiconductors, machine tools, consumer electronics,

motorcycles, steel, etc.).

As a result, segments of the U.S. industrial base are

in a period of rapid and pervasive restructuring. Some

industries that have failed to adapt advancing technology

will continue to decline. Others will automate and grow,

or fragment into many niche markets served more effectively

by totally new systems replacing the old. This is

illustrated in Exhibit I by the Kondratieff Longwave. The

Longwave is not precisely accurate, since many developments

65
have occurred that do not follow this pattern.

Nevertheless, it is a reasonable representation for many

"smokestack" industries. Professor Jay Forrester at the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology has further refined

and elucidated the "Longwave" through his "System

Dynamics" model. He identifies four phases to the

Longwave: (1) a 15~year period of collapse in which

obsolescent operations are shut down and written off, (2) a 20-year period of reinvestment in state of the art

technology, (3) a 10-year period in which overcapacity is

built, and (4) a 10-year period in which recession cycles

deepen and then the next collapse occurs. We are now at

the end of such a cycle.

However, this will be the last of the 50-year Longwaves

simply because -few products or processes are likely ever

again to have more than a 5 to 10-year life before they are

obsoleted by new developments. Also, a collapse such as occurred in the 1929 to 1945 period will not happen in the

United States, because the current writeoff of obsolescent

facilities, on balance, is being more than offset by the

generation of new businesses. However, the process of

restructuring is not uniform and pockets where the older

industries are concentrated will continue to be in

difficulty.

The Dynamic U.S. Economy

Nevertheless, net GNP growth is positive and as the

process of restructuring proceeds, the U.S. should be moving

into an exceedingly positive period. The dynamic nature of

the U.S. economy has been little understood. More than 21

million new jobs have been generated over the last 10

years, 90 percent of them in small businesses with fewer

than 500 people. Eight million of these jobs have been

generated just since 1982 when the Economic Recovery Tax

Act incentives were put in place (Exhibit II). This

"American miracle," as the Europeans call it, has absorbed

the baby boom and millions of women into the work force, at

a time when the European economy has lost jobs.

The reason for the job growth is that over 600,000 new

companies are incorporating each year in the U.S. economy.

Many of these are technology driven, but only about

10 percent actually are "high-tech" jobs. However, each

high-tech job, on average, creates a spectrum of 5 to 15

support jobs. For example, these are in maintenance,

construction, distribution, marketing, financial, legal,

communications, and clerical services. These support

functions now make up about 70 percent of the GNP, and are

a stabilizing flywheel for the economy because they remain

in constant demand by a growing number of enterprises,

which themselves may come and go from time to time.

66
Global Competition

The urgent need is to maintain and enhance this

remarkable climate for innovation that has been created in

order to cope with massive global changes that are

occurring. For example, foreign nations are targeting

selected businesses through go ver nment- indus try

collaborative efforts that involve various forms of

subsidy. These involve a "learning curve" concept of

"forward pricing" below true costs to capture new growth

and drive competitors out of the market (Exhibit III). The

government, in effect, carries the negative cash flow

involved. The Japanese have captured virtually 100 percent

of the consumer electronics business (VCRs, etc.), 95 percent of the motorcycle business, 90 percent of the 256,000

bit memory chip business, and made major inroads into many

others. The European Airbus- Industrie has copied this

strategy capturing 15 percent to 20 percent of the wide

body jet market and now are targeting a next-generation

150-passenger jet market, running enormous debts to do so.

Ariane, the French space agency has captured about

50 percent of the space-shot business, pricing below true

costs

.

These targeting strategies will continue to affect U.S.

industrial operations in any business where U.S. companies

do not have a technology edge. The need, therefore, is to

continually develop next-generation technology to maintain

such an edge, building on the tremendous pool of advanced

technology that the U.S. alone is capable of maintaining.

Global competition is further exacerbated by the

emergence now of developing nations that are taking

advantage of cheap labor and natural resources to capture

market share in businesses that are sensitive to these

factors. Much of the $80 billion U.S. commodity

petrochemicals industry will go off-shore to hydrocarbon

rich developing nations. The world glut of oil and gas

allows these countries to charge in natural gas and naptha

feedstocks at close to zero cost, when they represent

50 percent to 80 percent of U.S. costs.

Much of the primary production of metals also will go

off-shore as will labor intensive operations that can

produce at lower costs, for example, in Korea, Taiwan,

Singapore, and China.

Flexible Automated Manufacturing

The steady loss of some manufacturing, however, does

not mean that the U.S. is moving to an all-service economy.

In fact, manufacturing in the U.S. has been constant for

decades averaging between 20 percent to 25 percent of GNP.

67
If anything it will increase, but in a multitude of new

forms. Software development, for example, is an

explosively growing "manufacturing" business.

And contrary to some speculations, the cumulative

effect of thousands of new products and processes will more

than offset the obsolescence of older businesses or the

loss of others to foreign countries. However,

manufacturing jobs will continue to decrease as flexible

automated systems continually restructure process

technology. Automation, however, will be essential for

survival in world markets, and incentives for developing

these systems are exceedingly important.

o Within a decade, very few manufacturing operations

may be viable, that are not automated flexible

systems-- that can be continually reprogrammed to make

a large variety of products, but still run 75 percent

or more of the time for economies of scale.

o The U.S. has the advanced technology in sensors,

computers, software, and construction materials

necessary to recapture leadership in most industrial

areas

.

o Flexible automated systems even have the potential

for recapturing labor intensive businesses that have

gone offshore (textiles, shoes, semiconductors,

consumer electronics, etc.).

The importance of the investment tax credit and rapid

depreciation allowances enacted into tax law in 1981 have

been much more important than has been generally realized.

About $70 billion in capital investments made in 1984 were

in automation equipment, with profound consequences

(Exhibit IV). One hundred to one thousand percent

improvements in productivity have been demonstrated through

automation. For example. General Electric has realized over

a 1000 percent improvement in their Erie, Pennsylvania

locomotive plant and in their Louisville, Kentucky

washer-dryer operations.

Automation lowers unit costs and increases profits that

then can be invested in expanded operations that create new

jobs.

The alternatives to automation are to go out of

business or move off shore. The ITC and ACRS incentives

have been an important factor in the "climate" for

industrial resurgence in the U.S.

68
The U.S. Potential

The U.S. has unparalleled advantages over all other

nations. If effectively mobilized, these advantages can

reestablish technical and industrial leadership for U.S.

industries in most world m'arkets:

o In our universities and government laboratories we

currently are spending about $13 billion each year to

expand the pool of basic scientific knowledge. No

other nation can make this sort of inves traent . . .

a

permanent enduring advantage for U.S. industries.

o No other nation has a comparable depth, breadth, or

scope of t ec hn ic al- indus t r i al infrastructure that can

translate basic discoveries into useful products and

processes

.

0 No other nation has a comparable ent er pr eneur i al

culture that takes great risks without fear of

failure or loss of face if unsuccessful.

o No other nation has the flexibility of capital

development that we have.

o We have the world's largest market with a common

language in a democratic culture.

The imperative is to remove barriers to the

mobilization of these resources and to provide incentives

to accelerate the latent creativity that exists. Increased

efforts need to be made to remove antitrust and

counterproductive regulatory barriers. The high cost of

capital (12 percent to 15 percent in this country) is a severe deterrent both to necessary investment in fixed

assets and to the innovation process itself. Also, the

strength of the dollar which largely reflects the relative

strength of the U.S. economy has seriously affected exports

and reemphasizes the urgent need for low-cost automated

manuf ac t ur i ng

.

But with all these problems, the U.S. still has managed

to create an historically unprecedented climate for growth

and prosperity. It is important that we recognize the

nature of the "American miracle" that is the envy of our

European friends, and strengthen it. A robust U.S. economy

is essential for world peace.

69
EXHIBIT I KONDEtATIEFF/FORRESTER LONGWAVE

lllglt

Growth

EXHIBIT II

ERTA Stimulated Gcovch

70
EXHIBIT III

The Learning Curve

Log

Cost

Log Cumulative Volume

Costs Decrease About 20% for Every OoublinQ ol Total Industry Volume

EXHIBIT IV

Product ivi ty

The Effects of Automation

NEW investments R£DUCEO PAICES TO

CAPTURE MARKET SHARE

REOUCEO NEED

roR borrowing

ir

THESE CREATE ALSO mCREASEO THIS ALLOWS RESULTING IN TAX rating CARaCTTV REDUCES INCREASED LESS OEmanO

JOBS shortage exports FORCARiTal

71
72
THE NEED FOR COOPERATIVE R&D--CASE STUDIES

Lansing R. Felker and Susan L. Miller

Industrial Technology Partnerships Program

U.S. Department of Commerce

Cooperative industrial research and development (R&D)

has never been more important than it is today. Ventures

that pool the resources of private firms are critical to

America's competitiveness because they can strengthen the

weakest link in the U.S. innovation system-- translation of

basic research into commercially successful products or processes.

Principal U.S. trading partners have made use of

cooperative R&D for some time. Partly because of these

ventures, foreign firms have developed a competitive edge

in several industries in which the United States

traditionally has been a leader.

Even though the government spent over $7 billion on

basic research this year, the United States is not

transforming this strong base of fundamental knowledge

efficiently into commercial products and processes. It is

this translation phase that our competitors are more

effective in exploiting. Other nations license U.S.

technology in its early stages, make the necessary

investment for its development, and commercialize the

results ahead of U.S. firms.

Foreign competition, such as that posed by Japan in a number of technological areas, is just one of the three

types of "threats" that normally lead to formation of an

industrial R&D consortium. The second is a leading

domestic competitor (such as IBM represents in the computer

industry), which also can stimulate collaborative efforts

by other firms in an industry. "Threat" number three is

that of a new technology menacing the market share of

traditional technology (e.g. new materials to metals;

plastics to glass).

The National Cooperative Research Act of 1984

In view of its accepted importance to productivity and

competitiveness, why hasn't more cooperative R&D been

performed in this country? Part of the answer lies in the

view consistently expressed by firms that U.S. antitrust

laws have inhibited such activity. Companies have been

hesitant to become involved in collaborative R&D

arrangements because of the risk of treble damages and

criminal sanctions. And treble damage remedies virtually

provided an incentive for third party suits. A Commerce

and Justice Department initiative resulted in the recent

73
enactment of the National Cooperative Research Act of 1984.

Passed unanimously by both house of Congress, the new laws

revises the antitrust laws to:

o Analyze cooperative R&D ventures under a "rule of

reason" assessing their overall effect on domestic

and international competition, rather than deeming

them per se illegal;

o Protect R&D ventures from treble damage liability

and

;

0 Award attorney fees to the prevailing party when the

plaintiff has brought spurious litigation.

Since the Act authorizes cooperative R&D through the

stage of prototype testing, it does not change application

of' the antitrust laws to production, marketing, or the sale

of products, so that their effectiveness in insuring

competition during those stages will not be diminished.

Thus, the government has cleared away what U.S. businesses

perceived to be the main barrier to cooperat ion--risk of

antitrust liability.

Since the Justice Department and Federal Trade

Commission published procedures for filing for the

protections of the Act in December 1984, 25 groups have

already registered, and many others are in the process of

forming. These ventures range from high tech

industries-- micro electronics, telecommunications,

biotechnology-- to the more traditional industries, e.g.

steel, glass, autos. The Commerce Department is currently

working with a number of industries to help set up

cooperative R&D ventures.

Cooperative R&D in the Innovation Process

Government laboratories and universities perform the

majority of basic research, most of which is funded by the

federal government. The private sector invests primarily

in the high-cost, but lower-risk, later phases of

innovation. What remains is a gap in funding for the

applied research and early development phases.

Acting alone, even the largest company cannot undertake

this phase of the innovation process in some research areas

because of the prohibitive costs and risks associated with

early development of major technological breakthroughs. In

addition, firms must innovate faster because of the

dramatically increasing pace of technological change.

In many cases, especially the development of new

manufacturing processes, investment in this stage does not

result in products or processes that can be protected

through patents or copyrights. The benefits of the
Investment cannot be captured by the investing firm. Thus,

there is little incentive for a business to invest in

research whose results are not proprietary. The risks for

a firm to invest in this stage often outweigh the

incent i ves . Cooperative R&D usually is performed to develop base

technology that is an input to the member firms’ own

proprietary work; companies group together to fund

researph, then each tailors the results to its own

products. True cooperative R&D usually involves

collaboration among competitors. Therefore, once it has

developed base technology, a cooperative effort must end or

risk potential antitrust problems. By contrast with joint

ventures between two firms, cooperative R&D has a less

clear agenda; the end product of base research is usually

more uncertain.

Current Cooperative R&D Activity

It is difficult to determine the actual amount of

cooperative R&D activity in the United States, since the

government does not require reporting of such ventures.

The Department of Justice has records of R&D joint ventures

that sought rulings on antitrust implications between 1968

and 1980. Most projects reviewed were directed at

later-stage R&D involving existing technologies. A large

number of R&D ventures among manufacturers and suppliers

were also formed, often involving joint production.

In the past, in part due to fear of antitrust suits,

cooperative R&D has been carried out primarily by industry

trade associations, rather than by direct cooperation among

firms. However, their research agendas were designed to

improve technologies generic to an entire industry.

Associations normally do not attempt major breakthroughs in

technology

.

The most positive sign that industry has perceived the

utility of R&D cooperation is in the computer and

semiconductor industries. In the Microelectronics and

Computer Technology Corporation (MCC), 21 leading U.S.

computer and high-technology firms pooled research funds

and personnel with the objectives of competing with Japan

and radically advancing the state of computer technology in

five to ten years. Participants agree to share costs of

the programs for at least three years, guaranteeing

continued funding and entitling them to share research

results. Three years after project completion, the

technology can be licensed to nonparticipants, but members

have received several years head-start. The consortium

enables individual companies to take advantage of scarce

technical personnel and to benefit together from levels of

funding they could not afford individually.

75
The Semiconductor Research Cooperative (SRC), a subsidiary of the Semiconductor Industry Association, is

another model of a cooperative project whose goal is to

achieve longer-term advances in microelectronics R&D

.

Semiconductor manufacturers, merchants, and users are

eligible to participate. Industry members provide funding,

equipment, and technical personnel to universities for

collaborative research projects in generic fields related to

the semiconductor industry, such as electron beam

technology, materials science, and computer-aided design.

Nearly 200 SRC projects are scheduled at more than 40

universities. As in the MCC, sponsors have a time

advantage and receive rights to any patents or copyrights.

A model of the state-sponsored cooperative industrial

R&D venture is the Microelectronics Center of North

Carolina (MCNC). Approximately $50 million dollars--state

and industry funds--will be devoted to manufacturing

research at North Carolina universities with the goal of

producing a one million megabit chip. Ventures such as MCNC can fund R&D through the entire innovation process:

the universities will perform the basic research; MCNC will

carry out applied R&D; and industry affiliates will

commercialize the new technology.

Organizational Issues

Thus, several basic models of cooperative research have

been formed just in the past few years; industry/ industry

;

i ndus tr y/ un i ver s i t y ; indus tr y/ un i ver s i t y/ s t at e government.

Variations on these models have already begun to appear as cooperative ventures evolve. For firms considering forming

R&D consortia, there are certain standard issues that must

be considered in the early stages of setting up a cooperative:

Choosing the Technology Agenda

Any R&D consortium is built on the existence of an

unfunded R&D agenda, common to a number of firms, which

cannot be funded conveniently by any one of them. The

identification of that agenda, at least in general terms,

is essential to the successful formation of a consortium.

Also, commercialization of R&D has been found to be

more successful when the potential users of the technology

participate in setting the technology agenda, thereby

introducing a "market pull." By contrast, "technology

push" by the R&D performers, often develops answers in

search of a question, and is less successful. Industry

needs to set the agenda, even when the research will be

performed by university members.
A Champion

Every group successful in forming an R&D consortium has

been able to identify one or more people who originated the

idea and followed it through to actualization. A champion

can be a business leader who recognizes the need for

collaborative activity in the industry, or state or

university leaders who want to promote local economic

growth. For example, William Norris, Chairman and CEO of

Control Data, was the originator and prime mover of MCC.

Champions represent the support and commitment of high level

management, essential to successful completion of any R&D

project.

Time

Commitment to the project, by the - c hamp i on , leaders,

and participants is essential because formation of the

venture alone usually takes one year; in the case of MCNC,

five years were needed to complete a major facility and

coordinate with universities and industry affiliates.

Funding

Certain decisions fundamental to any jgint venture must

be made, such as number of participants, budget, and

whether the organization will be for- or non-profit. . Many

groups require multi-year commitments of funds, to ensure

continued participation through completion of projects.

In MCNC, funds are pooled by sponsoring companies for

all projects. By contrast, MCC members pay separately to

participate in each individual project. Several consortia

allow sliding-scale membership fees for small companies.

Donations of equipment or other in-kind payments are also

permitted.

Internationalization

This issue needs to be considered when deciding number

and types of participants. Because foreign competition is

frequently the reason behind formation of a joint venture,

many consortia do not accept non-U. S. members. For

example, MCC shareholders have to be 50 percent owned and

controlled by U.S. citizens, and must conduct a "substantial portion of their R&D in the U.S." SRC by-laws

exclude non-U. S. firms, as does MCNC.

Management

The for-profit cooperative organizations emphasize the

importance of a strong CEO or President to coordinate the

members* interests. A common arrangement is to have one

executive per sponsor on the Board of Directors; and one

representative per member, usually at the Vice President

77
for R&D level, on a Technical Advisory Board. It has been

recommended that legal and business staff work closely

together in the formation stage, because of antitrust,

intellectual property or other issues that could cause

potential problems.

P ersonnel

Procurement of research personnel can occur in a number

of different ways:

(1) They can be loaned by the member companies, MCNC,

for example, requires a commitment of personnel as well as funding from its members;

(2) Direct hire;

(3) Contracts to universities. SRC contracts fund 200

faculty and 400 graduate students per year;

(4) MCNC has temporary industry residents at its

facility, and also hosts international visiting

sc ient ists

;

(5) MCC members send "science liaison

representatives."

Intellectual Property

The last two issues, patents and licensing and

technology transfer, are considered by consortia leaders to

be the most important in setting up cooperative ventures.

For example, MCC found intellectual property to be the

"key issue for participants," requiring lengthy contractual

arrangements. MCC will license findings to non-members

after three years, giving its sponsoring companies

three year 1 ead- t i me- - sub s t an t i al in the electronics

industry. Participants will receive 70 percent of any

income from royalties; the remainder will return to MCC’s

research fund.

When cooperative membership includes universities,

intellectual property arrangements can vary depending on

individual university's demands. Some universities may

retain title to patents, while others may not. SRC

encourages participating universities to file for patents

resulting from research funded by the cooperative; if not,

SRC files. Members receive non- exc lus i ve , royalty-free

access up the amount of their payment to SRC.

At MCNC, an Intellectual Property Rights Review

Committee was set up for decision making regarding patents

resulting from pooled research. MCNC retains ownership of

78
Joint ( uni versi ty/ industry) developments; and industry

affiliates receive royalty-free, non^ exc 1 us i ve rights to

pooled industrial research.

Technology Transfer

Dr. Palle Smidt, Chief Operating Officer of MCC,

points out that if you don’t promote transfer, there’s no

point in doing the research. Long-standing methods used by

research groups have been: reports, seminars and

conferences, and exchange of scientific personnel. MCC

"science representatives" promote transfer on their return

to member companies. Graduate students trained under SRC

contracts often are hired by sponsoring firms. SRC’s Ralph

Cavin, Director of the Design Sciences Program, states that

"people transfer" is much more effective than "paper

transfer. ’’

Conclusion

Cooperative research and development programs promote

competition. They reduce duplication, make efficient use

of scarce scientific and technical personnel, and help

achieve desirable economies of scale. Small firms are able

to collaborate on projects that, because of prohibitive

costs, they could not perform on their own. Large firms

are able to tackle jointly today’s large and complex

technological problems, which often .are beyond the

technical or financial capability of individual companies.

For these reasons, cooperative research efforts will play a key role in the ability of US. industries to remain

competitive in the international marketplace.

79
80
ADTANCED CEHAMICS--IirDUSTllT/UHITERSITY INTERACTIONS

John 6. Wachtman, Jr.

Center for Ceramics Research

and

Malcolm G. McLaren

Department of Ceramics

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Surging industrial interest in ‘advanced ceramics in the

last several years has caused greatly increased

Industry/University interaction in this field. Some of

this interaction takes the form of increased activity in

traditional modes including consulting, unrestricted

grants, and single-sponsor research projects. In addition

new centers for ceramics research with multiple sponsors

sharing in a pool of basic research have come into

existence. Industrial sponsorship is supplemented by

federal and state sponsorship in most cases but

considerable variations in the roles of the sponsors and

their involvement in the direction of research is evident.

Advanced or high-performance ceramics, now entering

commercial use, are inorganic, nonmetallic materials having

combinations of fine-scale microstructures, purity, complex

compositions and crystal structures, and accurately

controlled additives. Such materials require a level of

processing science and engineering far beyond that used in

making conventional ceramics.

Ceramics are an enabling technology. The competitive

performance of many devices and large systems depends on

ceramic components that currently make up a small but vital

part of the total package. The competitive economic

leverage of superior ceramic components is large. These

superior components depend, however, on carrying the

scientifically demonstrated performance of new ceramics

into engineering realization as well as on pursuing the

science of still better ceramics. The challenge of

realization is a continuum of problems in advancing the

science and engineering of ceramic processing to levels of

purity, perfection, and scale not previously achieved.

Advanced ceramics is a critical arena of intense

international competition. The United States at present is

strong in the basic science of ceramics but appears to be

increasingly threatened in the extension of this knowledge

into the engineering and commercialization of advanced

ceramics. Japan, in particular, has a 10-year program in

high-performance ceramics with extensive industrial

participation and commitment. Japanese firms already

control 70 percent of the free-world market for electronic

81
substrates and appear likely to dominate much of the rest

of the market for advanced ceramics in the near future

unless the United States responds immediately in a more

effective manner. Recent events in Europe indicate that

similar strong competition founded on excellent technical

capabilities is also developing there.

The size of such overseas efforts, their coordinated

approach by industry, university, and government, and the

close coupling of research and development to applications

all underscore the seriousness of the competitive race

faced by the United States. Many U.S. firms not previously

active in ceramics have ident if ied ' this as a promising area

and have started new programs in ceramics; many firms with

existing ceramics programs have strengthened these and

expanded their scope. Over 50 firms have joined

university-industry programs in ceramics in the last three

years. There is a strong commitment to succeed, but also

an urgent need to expand the ceramics manpower base if

these new initiatives are to prosper and bear fruit. Thus,

the time is opportune for government, university, and

industrial cooperation in high-technology ceramics.

Promising high-priority research opportunities can be

grouped into four broad areas, each of which would support

development in both electronic and structural ceramics:

1. New thin films and layer structures with improved

pr oper t ies

.

2. Exploration of completely new, multicomponent

ceramic crystal structures and composites.

3. The mechanical behavior of ceramics and tough

composites.

4. Ceramic processing of large parts and assemblies.

There are 12 institutions certified by the Accreditation

Board for Engineering and Technology that grant B.S.

degrees in ceramics or ceramic engineering. There are 15

schools that offer formal advanced degrees in the field;

many more schools granting degrees in "materials science"

or "materials engineering" have faculty performing research

on ceramics. Approximately 300 B.S., 90 M.S., and 35 Ph.D.

degrees are awarded annually in ceramics or ceramic

engineer Ing.

At present, a large fraction of the B.S. graduates

enter the more traditional areas of the ceramics Industry

such as glass and refractories. An increasingly larger

fraction of the B.S. graduates, perhaps ^0 percent,

currently enter the electronics field. On the other hand,

virtually all the M.S. and Ph.D. graduates are filling

positions related to high-technology electronic and

82
structural ceramics. The demand for advanced-degree

graduates, particularly Ph.D.s, is far greater than the

supply. As a result, many positions that could and should

be filled by ceramics graduates are being filled by

graduates from related fields, such as metallurgy, geology,

and chemistry, who are being retrained during their first

few years of industrial experience.

As high-technology ceramic production expands, the

demand for B.S. graduates will increase. By 1990, most

B.S. graduates will be entering the high-technology

industries. At present, probably more than half of those

entering graduate ceramics education have an undergraduate

degree in the field. Thus, the number of B.S. graduates

must grow to meet the needs of both expanding industry and

expanding graduate research.

In the last few years research centers focused on

ceramics with multiple industrial sponsorship have been

established at several universities Including Rutgers

University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and

the Pennsylvania State University. In addition, university

research centers with strong industrial involvement, such

as the Center for Advanced Materials at the University of

California at Berkeley, have recently been formed with a broader theme, but including a substantial program in

ceramics.

The development of an improved science base and its

ultimate conversion to technology can be facilitated by a "part ner sh ip” approach in the university research centers

[1]. Typical partners are the National Science Foundation,

the university, industrial firms, and a state government.

Other government agencies may join with the National

Science Foundation, or take the lead themselves as appropriate to their mission requirements, but we focus on

the NSF discussion because of the traditional NSF concern

with research in universities.

Each of the partners makes inputs to a research center

and each expects to get certain outputs. Typical inputs by

the NSF are: (1) seed money, (2) organizational guidance,

(3) evaluation, and (^) providing an impartial monitor at

meetings. Typical inputs by the university are;

(1) faculty direction of research, (2) students,

(3) review, and (^) use of special facilities. Typical

inputs by a state are: (1) high technology equipment,

(2) a critical mass of operating funds to hire additional

faculty and professional or technical supporting personnel,

(3) peer review of the state's needs and capabilities, and

( ^1) buildings.

83
For the NSF the desired outcomes include:

(1) achievement of scientific progress, (2) high leverage

for federal money, and (3) documentation of success of

centers and the impact of the science and technology

developed.

For the university the desired outcomes include:

(1) fundamental research for faculty and students,

(2) financial support for research, (3) high technology

equipment with capabilities for additional research beyond

the immediate center, (4) facilities including buildings

and supporting personnel, and (5) increased reputation.

For industry the desired outcomes include: (1) fundamental

scientific concepts which can be applied to individual

companies technology, (2) better knowledge of students and

faculty, (3) use of patents developed in a center, (^) high

leveraging for their money in "pooled" research, (5) use of

the center as a broad information source on the field of

ceramics, and (6) opportunity to meet with other firms

(suppliers, competitors, and customers) in an atmosphere

oriented toward technical discussion.

For the state the desired outcomes include: (1) a better educational system in the center's area of research,

(2) reputation as an innovative state interested in

industry, and (3) potential new companies, and potential

new jobs.

Such university research centers are only one portion

of an overall strategy to build academic and industrial

strength. For example, the New Jersey Governor's

Commission on Science and Technology [2] identified four

mechanisms for action: (1) academic-industrial centers,

(2) research grants for innovation partnerships of

commercial importance, (3) space for new business on a business incubation facility basis, and (4) a technology

extension service program. The Uni vers i ty /Industry Center

can be a very valuable component, but it requires patience

and tact by the various partners, a recognition of the needs

and limitations of each, and a willingness to work together

to succeed.

The Research Briefings Panel on Ceramics and Ceramic

Composites made the following recommendations [3]:

To maintain leadership in ceramics technology the

United States needs to strengthen engineering research on

ceramics and to increase the number of properly trained

scientific and engineering personnel for current and future

work. Cr i t i ca 1- mas 3 efforts focused on ceramics but

drawing upon advances in other disciplines, in advanced

Instrumentation, and upon computer -as s i s ted modeling are

needed

.

84
Such efforts should be centered on ceramics, not

dispersed in a variety of scientific and engineering

disciplines. Still, other disciplines including chemistry,

physics, chemical engineering, and electrical engineering

need to be involved. Research should be done in teams of

sufficient size and should have a common focus on major

themes. This should augment, not displace, existing

single-investigator programs in ceramics. The groups

should have as a major goal the production of trained

personnel. Industrial Involvement is essential. However,

these group efforts should not be an attempt to perform

Industrial development or to substitute for necessary,

ongoing research and development activity in the industrial

sector.

To achieve critical-mass efforts on ceramic research

three mechanisms are recommended;

1. A modest number--a minimum of f i ve -- cer ami

c

science and engineering programs should be

established at universities over the next few

years. Each such program should have a focus on

aspects of ceramics in keeping with the base of

faculty capability on which it is built, but the

focus should not be too narrow, and there might be

overlap between programs.

2. A summer institute program should be established

to bring together leading ceramics researchers.

3. The feasibility of establishing at least one large

interdisciplinary ceramics center be studied.

Such a center could be equipped to carry out

research on the basic science and engineering of

ceramic processing and the application of ceramics

on a practical scale. It could be viewed as a national facility for interdisciplinary

experimental and theoretical work on

high-performance ceramics.

References

[1] "Converting Ceramic Science into Technology," M. G.

McLaren, John B. Wachtman, Jr., and S. George Walters,

in "Converting U.S. Scientific Leadership into

Technological Leadership," the 1984 Conference on

Industrial Science and Technological Innovation,

published by North Carolina State University.

[2] "Report of the Governor’s Commission of Science and

Technology for the State of New Jersey," December 1983.

85
[3] "Report of the Research Briefing Panel on Ceramics and

Ceramic Composites,” Research Briefings 1985, National

Academy of Sciences —National Academy of Engineering

Press.

86
ADVANCED CERAMICS-- IITDTJSTllY/GOTERWWEirT INTERACTIONS

Ora E. Smith

Executive Office of the President

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Today I am limiting my remarks on ceramics and

addressing a more general topic, one which is equally

applicable to ceramics, composites, steel, polymers, or

even Martian exobiology, and that is the subject of

government / industry interactions, especially interactions

between Industry and federal laboratories, such as NBS.

Previous speakers have shown clearly that the U.S. has

an industrial competitiveness problem that extends far

beyond the field of ceramics.

Many people have suggested using the resources of the

federal laboratories as a tool to enhance America’s

industrial competitiveness. The President’s Commission on

Industrial Competitiveness concluded that technology and

talent were the only two areas in which the U.S. stood a good chance of maintaining major long-term advantages over

its International competition. Technology and talent are

certainly two things that the federal labs have in

abundance. The government spends about $18 billion each

year in the federal labs, and employs about one-sixth of all

the nation’s scientists and engineers.

The federal labs fulfill at least two functions: one

of these is performing research directed at accomplishing

the missions of the agencies to which they are attached.

The second is performing basic research and thereby adding

to the nation’s storehouse of fundamental knowledge. Both

these functions benefit our nation’s industrial capability,

but in my experience the link between industry and the

federal labs is tenuous.

There is a common perception that some really excellent

capab il it les--fac 11 it les, people, ideas, and thlngs--are

just sitting around federal labs waiting to be picked up

and used in important industrial applications. This

perception, however, is false, because the people and

facilities within federal labs are not just sitting around

waiting to be tapped. They are already actively at work on

projects that probably bear little direct relationship to

most Industrial research problems. Consequently,

industrial/government joint programs are highly unlikely to

occur spontaneously. They must be carefully structured and

planned, even forced.

I would like to suggest four elements to Improve the

probability of having a successful industry/government

research Interaction:

87
1. Have realistic expectations,

2. Make sure the project meets the "site specific

industry receptor" test,

3. Create joint ownership of the project,

4. Keep management flexible.

The first element is to have realistic expectations.

It is all too easy for a potential Industrial partner to

think he may find a "silver bullet" in a federal lab.

After all, these are the people who invented the atomic

bomb, right? Well, yes, but that was a very expensive and

lengthy project, not to mention a national goal and

priority. A few million dollars spread out over several

years will -have the same result in a federal lab that it

will have in an industrial lab: it’s a good'start on a major problem. It might (and I emphasize might) produce a usable solution to a well-specified smaller problem.

There are two basic reasons why industry would want to

have a cooperative project with a federal lab:

1. The lab has technology available that a company

would like to have transferred to it.

2. A group of companies would like to fund research

work of common interest which none of them can

afford to undertake alone.

In the case of number one, the transfer of technology,

there should not be an expectation problem. Companies

ought to be able to recognize whether a technology they can

make use of exists within a federal lab. As former Supreme

Court Justice, Potter Stewart, said about obscenity, "I know

it when I see it." It Is mainly a matter of clear

communication and honest evaluation.

With regard to reason number two, a situation in which

a group of companies want to get together to fund long-term

research work at a federal lab, I urge some cautions:

The federal labs have good people, but they’re not

magicians. I would propose the following thought

experiment for a corporate R&D manager trying to decide

whether to try to accomplish a research goal through a cooperative arrangement with a federal lab: imagine what

it would take for your Industrial lab to do the job.

Imagine the facilities and the kinds of people. Ignore the

cost. Assume your general manager is infinitely

benevolent. Then, if you can imagine circumstances under

which you, the industrial R&D department, would be equipped

to do the job, it’s okay to look for a federal partner. If

88
you can’t imagine these circumstances, then what you really

need is magic, and you won't find it in the federal labs,

at least not in unclassified form. Plus, keep in mind that

if you're dealing as part of an industrial consortium, all

of your fellow members, who are probably competitors, will

know about the research results as soon as you do.

The second element of success is making sure the

project meets the "site specific industry receptor test."

This is a test I dreamed up after reading about how

narcotics work. Apparently the way opiates and some other

kinds of narcotics suppress pain is that the brain comes

equipped with certain little receptor sites of a particular

shape and chemical configuration. When an opiate molecule

comes along it fits into one of these sites just like a key

into a lock. Presto! Dr. Feel-Good at work! I think the

same phenomenon could describe the successful

industry /government cooperative research program. First,

there must be identified a very specific need in

industry —a "receptor site" if you will--and the work the.

federal labs will be doing in cooperation with the company

must fit it ever so precisely.

The "specific" receptor requirement places a terrific

burden on both industry and government. Industry has to be

able to describe what the receptor site looks like in

excruciating detail, in far greater detail than they have

ever thought about it before. Government, on the other

hand, is faced with the problem of designing a research

approach, tailored to that industry requirement, that

probably doesn't fit very well into what is already going

on in the laboratory. This tension can lead to much mutual

agony; however, if industry can't define its needs very

specifically, and if government can't tailor a program

exactly, then, just like the molecule that's almost but not

quite an opiate, the research results will go floating

right on by the receptor site, and the industrial partner

will never see any benefit.

Additional complications arise in cooperative programs

Involving several companies. The research results will not

be proprietary to just one company. The "specific site

receptor" must be one that is shared by other industrial

participants in the program. Finding such common ground

may be difficult.

The third element of successful interaction is creating

joint ownership of the project. It is vitally Important to

the success of any kind of undertaking, especially when it

cuts across organizational boundaries, that all parties

Involved feel they have an ownership stake in its outcome.

This is key to all entrepreneurlallsm and most other kinds

of human motivation. It is also a goal that is especially

hard to accomplish when the organizational boundaries being

crossed are between the private and public sectors.

89
Creating a sense of ownership within industry is more

straightforward than creating it in government. By

providing money and people an industrial partner will

create within itself significant feelings of ownership,

especially at the general manager level. In these days of

tight supply of high quality technical personnel, the

commitment of people is more difficult for a company to

make than the commitment of money. Consequently, the

people commife-ment is primarily what will lead to a sense of

ownership of the undertaking on the industrial side.

Creating a sense of ownership on the part of government

is more difficult. Resource investment does not create the

same sense of ownership in the government that it does in

industry. Strong ownership feelings in government do arise

when an undertaking is in the mainstream of the lab's or agency's business; that is, when it becomes more of a line

item and less a carve-out from discretionary programs.

When undertakings in federal labs become line items, they

get intensive management scrutiny, both in the lab- and in

the parent agency, much congressional attention, and also

attention from 0MB and other parts of the Executive Office

of the President, such as OSTP for example. In addition to

creating commitment all this scrutiny brings risk with it

and a dilemma results: to get really strong government

commitment to a program, the program must be highly

visible; yet high visibility leads to substantial risks

regarding performance versus expectations, and creates

political sensitivity. I know of no escape from this

dilemma. It is the kind of messy situation in which there

is no substitute for skilled and dedicated lab management

who are championing the same cause.

I need to add another dimension to the previous

dilemma. As we look to the future we need to think in

realistic economic terms. In my opinion the very best way

to assure a cooperative program will never be funded is to

make it contingent on getting all new federal money. There

are Just too many other forces at wor k--de f ic it reduction,

tax reform, defense recovery--to make 100 percent new money

funding a sure thing. Furthermore, since industry is

presumably benefiting from the cooperative undertaking,

industry should be paying a big part of the cost. To the

extent that federal money will be used, federal laboratory

management will be faced with a priority setting job: if

you want something new, room must be made for it.

The fourth and final element is to keep management

flexible. Government /industry programs are novel. They do

not represent the bulk of what most companies or most

agencies are Involved in. Consequently, management on both

sides needs to forget about all the rules of "how things

are done." Rules are the organizational equivalent of

habits. Some of them are bad habits. Like habits, rules

provide automatic coverage for routine situations, such as

90
brushing your teeth In the morning. They also represent a guide to organizational policy. But rules about how to do

routine business are not always good at coping with

anomalous situations, such as being chased down the street

by someone who’s shooting at you, or conducting a cooperative research program.

I hope these observations have been useful. In

summary, here are my four candidate characteristics for

successful joint go vernment /industry interactions:

1. Have realistic expectations.

2. Make sure the project meets the ’’site-specific

industry receptor test,” more conveniently known

as the ’’opium test.”

3. Create joint ownership of the project.

4. Keep management flexible.

91
Y yl

“6^

i* .im-A

f'-V

tsiK;

.41-s

|| f|l ||%liM§d

$E ^ on

. " '*

-ss-f

%

f^4'.>

x-aS?' B

.rt¥t

9%bH • ko

*"

. jiisS' -

' '^„

, ^ .

.- ^ '

-.

,. -.|^ >, #,.,.o * ^ -u c^r « A 1

1'> t ft'.

'OP. %3a^3 '

, Jft«' ioloi

'’.'ll

_ %. "^'--

,

'" .. - iii%l :

" ‘Y i 1 #ti« , e illy

.

A^u, Mna 111

m, *«d al*0^,

^ati f 4 Offlc<

P' »jtn i'tr.^

,s%g' »

*• f

’* 'f!f

* ‘ ^

t»l,g f ? a . ^f*^^^lsa<l,

' 4r *y L^f)f0i$$m0itt 'v

f«»

'•-.- ;'i« iftivt

.f-y i-..tt-^

^ ?®ii l« to

. 4 . # if . Tlbji#*.,*i

;IV% • •«vetl<5i^v

A.»«^r It

1,^ ‘ ftHlOtf

• nto

. ftoneot^y'

>4 ]«».* in

f .. *• d

I

r

Tht/" dOi

;#« or not 4 „ 04»»f#tNlM *lo ootlll

gff, |||,||

'* ^|0#1.0A« of

92 xe

^

'' U iff

* * tttt '''llo.ll''
SESSION IV:

WORKSHOPS ON

INDUSTRIAL

COOPERATION

93
94
STRUCTURAL CERAMICS

Joseph N. Panzarlno

High Performance Ceramics Division

Norton Company

Introduction

The field of structural high performance ceramics for

purposes of this workshop report Included heat engine

components, cutting tools/dles, bearings, seals/wear parts,

armor /m 11 1 tary applications, substrates

(electronic/chemical), powder s /f 1 bers , bloraaterlals and

thlck/thln film coatings. Some of the above were discussed

and considered In combined form generally based on the

knowledge base of the workshop participants. All agreed

that the above set of pro due ts /app 1 1 ca 1 1 on areas generally

would apply to a reasonable definition of the structural

ceramic area with some potential for constructive overlap

Into the other major category of this workshop, namely,

electronic ceramics.

A number of studies in the recent past as well as some

current endeavors of various governmental, university, and

industrial agencies have indicated a significant market

potential for structural high performance ceramics, growing

stronger in the late 1980s and 1990s. However, serious

potential technology gaps primarily in U.S. industry have

also been projected by these studies. This assessment is

multifaceted (as is the high performance ceramics industry)

and difficult to definitively assess but the overall

message remains quite clear and pressing. Unless new

initiatives and implemented action plans are undertaken

without delay, the next major materials revolution and the

economic gains associated with it will be basically a foreign event. The U.S. is still in a position to dominate

academically as well as commercially in this area and at

the same time protect the independence of military

applications, but we must respond broadly and perhaps in a new way. The DOC workshop convened on 10 July 1 985 was

designed to explore the potenti-al for industry-government

liaison as well as serve as a sounding board and catalyst

for future actions designed to address the perceived threat

already discussed.

In the structural workshops, three basic issues were

discussed: (1) technological assessment, (2) market

potential, and (3) cooperative possibilities. The results

of these discussions are presented as follows and conclude

with the recommendations from the structural portion of the

workshop.

95
Technological Assessment

Using as an analytical tool the phases of technology

movement from ideas through commercialization

(Figure 1, [1]), the workshop concluded that adequate

resources were currently being applied to the early part of

the cycle (concepts, feasibility), while some concerns were

expressed about the commercialization phase. This seemed

to be tied to end user commitment, and/or market uncertainties perhaps associated with, reliability and market

inertia. The net result seems to be having a "delaying”

effect on the motivation of market penetration for high

performance structural ceramics.

However, even more serious, needs and deficiencies

were identified in the translation phase of Figure 1 (development, prototype, interim manufacture) with respect

to heat engine components and powders /fi bers in the opinion

of workshop participants. Other deficiencies pointed out

and discussed, but of somewhat lower . pri or i ty in face of

the major need in the translation area, included the need

for materials/ceramic curricula with more emphasis on subjects necessary to high performance ceramics, i.e.

physics, polymers, metallurgy, colloidal science, etc.

Also, cited were a lack of quality assurance development,

cross fertilization of engineering/science disciplines,

test standardization and adequate technological focus

coupled to end user commitment and needs.

Market Potential

The workshop assessed the potential of various areas of

structural ceramics using the format in Figure 2 as a guide. There are many ways of doing this, and while the

methods can be addressed in subsequent specific

assessments, the general trends are felt to be significant

and seem reasonably consistent with studies undertaken in

much greater detail. The highest potential areas with the

most significant technological (competitive) gaps appear to

be heat engine components, fibers (whiskers) for

reinforcement and non-alumina substrates. One area of high

potential and high competitive position was seen in the use

of these materials in rail Itary/space applications. To

minimize overlap with. the electronics workshop, the

structural group emphasized non-alumina types of

substrates. These items are Important with respect to

thermal conductivity, dielectric constant, expansion,

strength, and radiation hardness.

Items with moderate market potential and reasonable

current competitive position Included bearings, wear parts,

powders, and cutting tools. Part of the assumptions built

into Figure 2 are assumed dollar values in the year 2000 as the ordinate measure. Both axes use a qualitative scale

from low to high (1-5). The numbers indicate trends and

96
areas of emphasis. Many studies have been already

undertaken in significant detail which attempt to quantify

dollar values. All have associated assumptions and

potential for error. This assessment, therefore, did. not

attempt to address the quantitative aspects of market

potential. It was further agreed that ceramic coatings and

biomaterial applications would not be considered as

separate items, but would be best covered as part of the

other categories as appropriate.

Cooperative Possibilities

The third topic of workshop discusson was really the

major focus of discussion since, as already mentioned,

other efforts have covered in detail the first two topics.

The structural group had strong consensus that a major need

exists in the areas of collaborative industrial R&D. This

should be targe.ted toward the major needs identified in

technology translation and related to those items with

highest and moderately high potential, eg. heat engine

components, etc. While much information on collaborative

R&D concepts, government interactions, etc. was presented to

the attendees during the workshop plenary sessions, a somewhat different and specially focused initiative is

proposed. This is directed at the ” Transl at i on-Tr ans f er

deficiency and could have real potential if implemented at

the appropriate go vernment / Indus try levels without delay.

The concept would be called an Advanced Manufacturing

Development and Engineering Center (AMDEC) and would

operate both core programs and member/user programs using

in the latter an advanced automated and highly flexible

pilot manufacturing capability (line). The center would

act much like a hotel with a small, critically sized

permanent nucleus (minimum of 10 exempt) to carry out core

programs, maintain facilities and assist member-users in

their programs undertaken on site. The member-users would

have proprietary protection in the use of center facilities

due to the nature of logistics and by design. Core

programs could be more generic or where cross informational

risks are acceptable to the industrial user. This center

should have the potential of early useful outputs and

facilitate on-site training of member personnel while

pursuing its major function of accelerating technology

transfer to the commercialization stage.

Since regionality and its advantages of logistics,

knowledge base, geography, etc. may suggest more than one

such center, implementation could be envisaged as follows:

© Cooperative industrial funding with the potential for

state participation.

97
© Potential locations could include in order of

preference, national labs, research park, university,

stand alone. The national lab location addresses

some key potential negatives in establishing such

centers, i.e. heavy construction costs, long time to

first results, Inadequate local support.

0 The center must be independently managed by industry

but university affiliation and government advisory

assistance are considered of utmost importance.

Recommendations/Action Plan

From the structural ceramic workshop the action plan

recommended, therefore, is targeted at the major needs

identified, i.e. significant collaborative R&D concentrated

in the technology transfer area and directed at major

targets of opportunity in high performance ceramics.

1. Building on the beneficial aspects of the DOC

workshop herein reported, the DOC with other

government agencies as appropriate should act as forum and catalyst by fostering the formation of

an Industrial Steering Committee to evaluate the

overall workshop’s recommendations and synthesize

as necessary. The commi ttee/DOC should then

report cone lus i on/ r ecommendat i ons to key CEO’s and

federal agency officials. Comments and support

would then be solicited leading to recommendations

to the presidential science advisor.

2. Assuming Item 1 leads to a recommendation to

proceed, the interested/ key CEO’s would then meet

under DOC auspices for final consensus building

and implementation of the appropriate technique(s)

for collaboration.

Acknowledgment

The significant help of Dr. V. J. Tennery (Oak Ridge

National Laboratory), Dr. Robert Eagan (Sandia National

Laboratory), Dr. Robert Gottschall (DOE), and Dr. Dale

Niesz ( Battelle/Columbus ) in the facilitation and analysis

of these workshop proceedings is acknowledged with pleasure

and gratitude.

Ref er enc e

[1] D. Bruce Merrifield, ’’Forces of Change: Need for

Innovative Action,” Conference Proceedings, The New

Climate for Joint R esearc

h

, May 1 3, 1 983, U.sT

Department of C ommer c e--0 f f i c e of the Assistant

Secretary for Productivity, Technology and Innovation

Publ. P12.

98
99
Figure

2

BUSINESS

STATUS

STRUCTURAL

CERAMICS

• >*

Q)

(1) (/>

C c

m O

5 E

o o 10

<A

0)

Q

o

oH

O)

c

O

0

CO 0

CM

k.

<

0 X

0. m

k.

0 0

0) 0

U) 0

cm^mk. 0 0

CO 0

0 0 3

CQ CO CO

• • 0 a LU

CO

o

<

0)

o

*0

O

Q.

^ ^

0)

0

« «

C

= o

0 =

£ gu. Q. <<

t.

• Q

\ m

u.

0

LO Tj- CO CM

(0003 ‘BaA) |9>1JB|/\| |B!iua»od

LO

CO

CM

o

100

U.S.

Competitive

Position
ELECTRONIC CERAMICS

Robert J. Stokes

Honeywell Physical Sciences Center

The largest single market for Advanced Ceramics is the

electronics market which by various assessments is now as

large as $8B worldwide with the potential to grow to $20B

by the mid 1990's [1]. This market is taken to include the

business associated with the processing, fabrication, and

application of ceramics for the specific electrical,

magnetic, and optical properties.

The subject is very diverse and the products associated

with it range from the innovative to the mature. To put a boundary on the topics for consideration by this workshop,

we discussed the following applications:

Insulators--Substrates , I.C. Packages, Microwave

Dielectrics

Capacitors —Single layer. Multilayer

Ferroelectrics“”Piezoelectrics, Pyroelectrics

Resistors —Resistors, Varistors, Thermistors

Electrolytes--Batteries

Sensors —Semiconductor Sensors, Electrochemical Sensors

Fer r i tes--Sof t Recording Media, Hard Permanent Magnets

Optical Components —Optical Fibers, Electro-optic

Devices

For each of these categories, the workshop attendees

were asked to assess: the status of the technology; the

business projection and U.S. competitive position, the

advantages and best approach to cooperative industrial R&D.

Technical Status

Figure 1 is an attempt to place the various

developments in Electronic Ceramics on a single plane. It

recognizes the fact that in all cases (with two exceptions)

electronic ceramics have reached the commercialization

stage, but in each case there are new materials in earlier

stages of development to meet evolving needs and new

applications. Thus there is R&D activity throughout the

spectrum from basic idea generation to prototype

manu f ac ture

.

The technical deficiencies identified with these

developments range from a lack of basic knowledge to reproducibility in the manufacturing process. They are

presented in Table 1 with the scientific needs listed at

the top and the manufacturing needs at the bottom. There

is a common emphasis on research into new materials (based

largely on the perovskite and spinel crystal structures);

101
processing of reliable high purity, well characterized

materials; reproducible manufacturing; and the ability to

market and evaluate prototypes.

Business Projection

Two parameters were used for this assessment, first the

magnitude of the world wide market, and second the U.S.

competitive ability to penetrate this market. Figure 2 is

an attempt to present both of these parameters on a single

plane. The scale for potential market is approximately

logarithmic, the value 1 corresponds to about $10M per year

and 5 to about $1B per year. Optical components were rated

very high because of the substantial projections for optical

fibers in the communication industry.

With respect to competitive position, the U.S. was

judged to have an advantage in only two areas, the other

eight were only average or below due chiefly to the

Japanese dominance in the electronic ceramics industry.

The Japanese advantage stems from substantial Government

investment in R&D, particularly the synthesis, processing,

and characterization of ceramic materials; long range

industrial support for project development; and a sympathetic marketplace willing to accept and evaluate

prototype materials and devices.

Cooperative Research and Development

The general consensus of the workshop was that an

industrial cooperative enterprise is essential to maintain

the present status and to establish a better competitive

position. Each of the technical deficiencies summarized in

Table 1 requires a different allocation of resources as

indicated in Figure 3-

(1) The fundamental ceramic sciences need continued

support through the Federal Government,

particularly agencies such as the National Science

Foundation where the emphasis is on a basic

understanding of the principles involved in

materials selection and processing. An important

product of a strong university scientific research

program is the flow of suitably trained graduates

to staff the technology development programs aimed

at commercial development.

(2) Generic research in ceramic processing is best

conducted in a program requiring universityindustrial cooperation. Penn State, Rutgers, and

MIT are outstanding examples of mu 1 1

i - indu st r ia

1

sponsorship of university research. Although the

style and emphasis of each affiliate program is

102
different, the financial commitment and participation by the industrial members in the selection of

research topics is a key feature.

(3) It was the opinion of the attendees at the

workshop that the most important need in

electronic ceramics is a coopera t i ve research and

development effort on topics critical to product

development and the manufacture of product

prototypes. The objectives are very specific and

timing is shorter than can be expected of

university research. Such an effort is conducted

best by an industrial consortium, of which MCC is

an excellent example, wherein industrial

participants work cooperatively to achieve common

technology goals essential for prototype

manu f ac t ur e . Points made in connection with a consortium for

electronic ceramics research were

(a) An electronic ceramics consortium must

not be isolated from a similar

consortium envisaged for structural

ceramics.

(b) Laboratory facilities for an electronic

ceramics consortium should be located

close to a national laboratory or major

university strong in ceramic materials

research.

(c) Electronic ceramic materials research at

the stage of prototype development

cannot be conducted in an isolated

environment. It must be closely

coordinated with and responsive to the

needs of electronic engineering and

manufactur ing.

(4) The workshop also identified the need to achieve a fully competitive position to develop receptive

markets in which prototypes could be evaluated.

It was felt that such an activity was appropriate

to the objectives of a consortium but needed

coordination with the commercialization objectives

of the newly formed United States Advanced

Ceramics Association.

(5) Finally, it was recognized that in some instances

highly specialized developments in advanced

electronic ceramics require access to special

facilities and expertise. To the extent that they

exist, the industry is encouraged to draw on the

resources in the National Laboratories.

103
TECHNICAL

DEFICIENCIES

IN

ELECTRONIC

CERAMICS

T3

®

bO

C >> e c c <a to ® ® 3 o E 0.4J « ® «H is a >. O Q o o o o u ®

4>

® c c 3 -H o *-•

O o o sz •o

© 3 o c 0-^0 o > o c CO® c ® C ® n Ou CO t-> a. o cu S

nj o

oa CO I II I I I I 1 n 1 x: x> n X3 o

i-H rH 3 ®

(0

O o c n <Li

flj c C3 E Cx]

n c ® o

>,

® 4-> •—1 ®

x: e (0 Ciu

w c Cl

cu o s Jj

® o c CQ c o n o n 3 ® 3 o c ® c ® x: ® c x: c ® cx ® s a. 2 CJ f- Cu CO CO

x:

4-) o O o o o o O n - on o n >. o o o o x: bO (30 c o c (30 4-4 CL C c 4-3 (0 3 C 4-3 c >• c «-• o -4 03 4J r-t XJ n o c •o •O -44 o ® « n m CJ ® -3C o c ® X> > ® ® n 4-3 c ®

rH

W o o ®

® c ® 4-3 4.3

® >» x> o o o o ® c c O

O

O

C x> c c c o > 3 c m

®

® c O ® a. x> o. c o 4.3 o o «-H C c E c Cu E o —4 r—i Ci3 ns ® T3 C c O E ® 3 E 4-> ns x: Cb C ® ® O ^ cc C ca ns o ^ C_) ® CL n T3 o 4-3 c c ns

<n 3 X> Cb o c m

® 4-4

C 4.3 bo c n x: ffl O c n ® o o e x3 ® c o O bO -H a. ® c 4-3 X3 o c N. ns O 2: 4.4 4J -•H '-4 o. o ns c o r-H l-l ® c n X ® <D o x: ® —4 OS n> i“4 o >. 4-> c Q H «- c m X, l3 U <n u* x: <c ns <L4 fl 0) 03 o. OL -o s Du 1 1 u > 1 1 X 1 1 m 1 ®o o o o o o c 4J o c

«-

®

® 4-3 ® « C m bO

®

m

bO |—4

4J bO c c #H « ® c o ••H 4-t >» . c. ®

CX

O

® « C.3

n

O 4-> CX

® o o —4 e ® n •H c. s >. 4-3 o fH c ® n ® O O ® c ® V ® ® c. o o

CL >» c o o r— E H »—4

CX CL >» c.

X 3 o 1. o X <d >. E 4-> 4-3 4-3 • CL ® ® « 4.3 ® 4.3 <4 4-3 O ® rH bO 4-> o c o T3 1-4 O S -44 CL ® o 4-3 0> o c o c o 4-3 • r-4 ® 4-4 ® C- > N ® >4 n CO z: a. •H 3 4-4 CJ c ® < 44 1-4 ® -4 4-1 n 4-4 4-1 C. n c \ \ t. X *-H c. X3 ®

>v X> t.

® x: 4-3O c. t. c. x>

O o ® o o ®

® 3 —4 >» E ® C >4 c. ® —4 H o ® ® 3 a c o 4J T3 4J 4-> o x> 3 ® ® 4J ® 4-3 Q 3 « 4-> 4-3 CO •—4 X a ® B E c ® o ® o 3 t.

4.3 E c 4-3

® -C -a 4-3

®O

B bO

O *->

®

® t. s ® •o tH 4-3

®

®

® 3 X 3 bO c O

B

® T3

® 3 JZ c. t. t. CO

B 4-4 o <0

m c •o cx a O 4H o ® ® C. ® jZ O •a ® ® ® tb ® 3 3 t- 3 c

4-3 c o E 3 X o 4.1 t.

® L. CJ

X «*: 4J

O CJ 3 1 C. CJ

C CXC3 3-(

® 3 1.

O

® 4-4

® sz c o O

®

® 4) X33

CO

Cb CL o 2 1 1 to CL CJ 1 1 1 l-H 1 1 .J o o 1 X CC 1 o O O o o o o

104

Market

Development o

Fragmented

Market o

Relatively ”

Prototype

Evaluation -

Military

Speo 1f

lea 11

on3

Small

Markets

Marketing -

Security

of

Custom -

Low

Cost

Commercial

Packages
TABLE 2

CDDPEBATTVE BAD IB ELECTBONIC CEBAHICS

Technology need R&D mechanism

Baal c sc 1 ence Federally sponsored university

research (e.g. NSF)

Generic research in

ceramic processing

Uni vers i ty/ i ndus try affiliates

(e.g. Penn State, Rutgers, MIT)

Product development and

prototype manufacture

Cooperative industrial

consortium (e.g. MCC)

Market development Trade association (e.g. USACA)

Special facilities National laboratories (e.g. DOE

Labs)

Acknowledgment

It is a pleasure to acknowledge the input of all the

attendees at the Workshop. Special help was provided by

Dr. James Heasley, Ferro Corporation, Dr. David Johnson, Jr.

AT&T Bell Laboratories, Mr. James Wade, Coors Porcelain Co.,

in organizing the workshop.

Reference

[1] ”A Competitive Assessment of the U.S. Advanced Ceramics

Indus try” --U . S . Department of Commerce, March 1984.

NTIS Accession Number PB84-162288.

105
106
Figure 1

R&D

TECHNOLOGICAL

STATUS

ELECTRONIC

CERAMICS 1 s aa

CO o 3

Ink to

tos. o +J h- o • 0) <u c <u cn t/> p“ 4-J to .a CO 'v m CQ CO •r- 0) • c O • (B (U &. 4J Ll. HH CO 4-> 1- -f- E cs

(0 • ro (U S- Q. E «:!• CO CO m c u. s- tc CO 4J •<- O O O o o (U <u O o u T3 *> •f— •!— •r* s- z CM C Li. •1“ ^ CVJ t- ^ CO 1— 1— H- t— rvi O -t-> o o IVI 4-> rM

p .— o <U 3 $- rtj tvi z C 3 i- c •I— fO Q. _1 O

<C CL. . ^ ^ M CQ CO a. a.M q; tvl oo Z CO

O QCDs- ^ o U. Z E 1

OI>) 3o >—

(O T3 _ii/) ra —1 (U S. •!-> o ' ^ •O 0) 3 S c

iB r— O .Cr- OJ CD 3 O crxu to s

s: •r-o: (o Z CO - \ E o

.2

a ^ >s (U CO i2 ^

4-> oCVJ 3 C1 g

Q. s: <x1 / eo 3 g \ to <u •r- 0) o §• P <2 IB &.

4-> (/I w

OI

h- ^

roLi. o •o <U o .ci o > c >> Q. JO H- b 3 IB E u Z M O -J O o CO u _i Cl

0) Z +J

tou

0) >t iD r— *r- <• %. i. V/ C/1 O </l a Lo uo U- 3 <u X r— >1 0) o

J3 SI >-> (B <B (B -M CM CJ •«0 O —J T- X)

(/) co (U

U to z CO CQ • o Q£ 0) o o o. 4-^ M CL <\J « ^ O ^O

(> o EO

<_3 5 <B

(U z Z' E 3 O Z O o

1—

Floi KTP

Tfl * • • • S c

M- 1! o O)

S.OJ

dea erat

««

>>

fB

— to

to ^ U (U <u .fCJJ S- ' e E >T (B 0) d) <B <— L. -M s so 3z

•SiC s- o 0) a. o O rO

+-> z 00

ifo

V)

<nQ> ««

(9w

t)

v>V

O)

(0o

(9 0.

0> Vi

i, ^

««c % ** 0 S c o

(/> wo««o

(9

v>«W0«1

”9

<9 > 12 If2

oJHi w

0>><oL.

COwO

<0

</)

•E c

0)c

«9

® o Q- 03 • o• .2 « Zo a a

(/) 0) Vs c

'3 E 9

(0

(9 o

0) £

OCK

V

uj

0)

(/)

4) U. ao OO • < t 00 9 o 9 o uJ 9 u. d X • •o 107
Figure

2

BUSINESS

STATUS

ELECTRONIC

CERAMICS

(0

.. X)

5^ 3

0) c/3

COO

o

o

CO

o

"S

0) CO —

o O

O)

CO

Jsd

o

CO

Q.

o

>

CO

o

6

CO

o

o

< cn o Q

CO

k.

o

o

CO

CO

o

CO

o

o

o

N

CO

CO o

k.

^

7T

o i2

i2

CO

<D E 2

o 0)

CO

c

0) c

o

o.

CO E O o ^ a, ^

o“ 2 w — ^ <1) — o

CO

® s

CL CC H- LU (/)

Lii ll! d X

o

Ll.

CO

o

Q.

o

< (D

-D Q Um

o

X LU

m ^

CO cNj

10>|JB|/\| |B|JU0JOd

in

CO

<N

O

108

U.S.

Competitive

Position
Figure

3

COOPERATIVE

R&D

FOR

ELECTRONIC

CERAMICS

Industry- Federal

1S0•

to

•UJ (Oq 30

thanism

Industry- Industry

o

GCCOo“

o

s

X X X X X X X X X

tive

R&D

Mec

IndustryUniv.-State

COo

O)

3

cc

- X

Coopera

Muitlclient:

Univ.&Non

-Profit o

oS«9 m

S

-n

X

Industry Assoc. E

Q.UJ ^

Examples

c

Ocv. o

Jr-S

X

0-2 O ® X o- X 0- c- c- c- c- X

A.

Substrates

B.

I.C.

Packages

C.

Microwave Dielectrics

0.

Capacitors

E.

Piezoelectrics

F.

Resistors,

Varistors,

Thermistors

Q.

Electrolytes

H.

Sensors

1

.

Ferrites

J

.

Optical

Components

109
110
SESSION V:

A NATIONAL

AGENDACONSENSUS

VIEWS

111
112
A NATIONAL AGENDA FOR ADVANCED CERAMICS: CONSENSUS VIEWS

Richard M. Spriggs

National Material's Advisory Board

National Academy of ’Sciences

The task of the final session of the Conference is to

synthesize the findings of the two workshops on Structural

Ceramics and Electronic Ceramics and to develop approaches

for future actions that will lead to an optimization of the

growth, productivity, and competitiveness of the U.S.

Advanced Ceramics Indu3try--in essence, to attempt to provide

a National Agenda for Advanced Ceramics-“A Call to Action.

While some may view such an objective as overly

ambitious, others are convinced that great strides can be

made toward the basis for such an Agenda. The importance of

this endeavor cannot be underestimated because if this group

does not, there is no assurance that anyone else will do so.

Partial success may already be claimed on at least two

counts: (1) the participants to this Conference have been

usefully exposed to the challenge, and attendant changes in

attitude have already occurred,' and (2) the newly conceived

U.S. Advanced Ceramics Association has used the occasion of

this Conference to finalize its charter organization.

Thus, in this session, time will be allowed for

individual review of the two workshop summaries, for

summarizing remarks by the two workshop chairmen, and for

general discussion that will lead to any consensus views and

conclusions as to the next steps toward implementation, i.e.

to fashion a National Agenda for Advanced Ceramics.

By way of a preface, it could be reiterated that concerns

for the threat to the U.S. advanced ceramics industry posed

by foreign competition, especially from Japan, have been

increasingly voiced by spokesmen of the field, initially, for

example, by H.K. Bowen of MIT, and convincingly by

A.R.C. Westwood of Martin Marietta in yesterday morning’s

industrial overview/keynote talk. Both spokesmen served on a recent National Materials Advisory Board Committee, chaired by

Dr. Westwood, whose report. High Technology Ceramics in

Japan , reported on the nature and extent of Japan’s

commitment to high-technology ceramics.

A similar commitment by the United States, it is felt,

has heretofore been lacking. However, promising signs have

recently been noted, e.g. conferences such as this one,

workshops, a host of techn ica 1- and economic articles, new and

enlarged individual corporate commitments by U.S. industrial

firms, the establishment of academic centers of excellence

fostering industry-university-government relations and

cooperative research in ceramics, and the very recent

formation of the U.S. Advanced Ceramics Association.

113
Describing the period we are entering as the New Era of

Ceramics, this author has called for the establishment of new

cooperative research organizations, ones of which might be

known, for example, as the American Corporation for

Engineering Research on Adva’nced Materials, Including Ceramic

Structures, i.e. American CERAMICS, Inc. The recent

enactment of the National Cooperative Research Act of 1984

would facilitate the establishment of cooperative R&D ventures

in advanced ceramics among domestic firms. Such ventures

would appear to be a principal vehicle by which American

industry can close those technology gaps that exist and can

improve U.S. competitiveness.

Ezra Vogel, author of a previous book, ’'Japan as Number

One,” in his 1985 book, "Comeback,” identifies the common

elements for' an ” Amer ican-sty le competitive strategy” and

asserts that ”... to deal with complex issues that require

national coordination, there is no alternative to developing

a selective industry strategy.” Advanced ceramics would

appear to be such a selective industry deserving of its own

strategy

.

In a related vein; a recent editorial ( Research and

Development , July 1985) called for a new national pastime for

the United States, compet it ion--compet it ion in world markets

in ways that this nation never has’competed in the past.

Again, advanced ceramics represents such a world market.

One could easily develop a rationale for a national

commitment in advanced ceramics,

o The markets are large and growing at significant

rates

o Foreign competition and market share presently

predominate

o U.S. efforts have heretofore been disaggregated

o There are deficiencies in the current approach

o An industrial focus is needed.

What are the major pathways to such a commitment? These

can be ident if ied :

o Industrial promotion and support

o Optimized technical directions (focused R&D,

enhanced manpower training, effective information

systems and technology transfer), and

o Cooperative research ( industry / industry

,

industry/university, industry/government)

Ideally, the next steps of this Conference would be to

reach a consensus on organization and to develop an action

plan

.

114
A summarization and general Conference discussion of the

workshop summaries on structural and electronic ceramics has

led to a general consensus for a strong need for cooperative

industrial R&D in identified high-market potential areas, e.g

heat engine ceramics, capacitors, optical components,

integrated circuit packages, etc.

The concept was put forth in Session V of this conference

for an Advanced Manufacturing Development and Engineering

Center (AMDEC), which would operate both core programs and

member/user programs employing an automated and highly

flexible pilot manufacturing line. One or more such centers,

regionally located--perhaps at national laboratories,

operated by an industrial cooperative, and with university

affiliation, and federal and state government advisory

assistance, were envisioned.

In similar fashion, some form or forms, of cooperative R&D

were also envisioned in several areas of electronic ceramics,

especially capacitors, optical components, and I.C. packages.

Industry/ industry cooperation is needed for

techno logy/ produc t development; un i ver s i t y/ i ndus tr

y

affiliations are required for basic research in processing,

and industry/ federal laboratories interactions were stressed

for special facilities and expertise.

Based on the above consensus, it was recommended that the

assistance of the Department of Commerce be sought to convene

a meeting of an Advanced Ceramics Industrial Steering

Committee. This Committee would be requested to evaluate the

recommendations of this Conference, with the committee's

conclusions and recommended actions being reported back to

industrial chief executives and corporate decision makers,

and shared with high-level executive offices, e.g. the Office

of Science and Technology of the President, and ultimately

result in consensus building and action to create one or more

cooperative generic Research and Development Centers for

Advanced Ceramics. (Attached is (1) a copy of the letter

drafted by the Session V panelists and sent to the Department

of Commerce on August 12, 1985 and (2) the reply letter from

DOC . ) Attachment: August 1 2, 1 985 letter to D. Bruce Merrifield-,

DOC; October 31. 1985 letter to Richard Spriggs,

Robert Stokes and Joseph Panzarino

115
Augi^st 12 , 1985

The Honorable D. Bruce Merrifield

Assistant Secretary for Productivity,

Technology and Innovation

O.S. Department of Commerce

Room 4824, H. C. Hoover Building

Washington, D.C. 20230

Dear Dr. Merrifield:

We are writing to request your concurrence and good

offices in convening a meeting of an Advanced Ceramics

Industrial Steering Committee.

The purpose of this Committee would be to build on the

work of the Conference and Workshop sponsored by your office

and the National Bureau of Standards on ’A National Prospectus

on the Future of the O.S. Advanced Ceramics Industry," and held

at NBS on July 10-llth.

This Conference, attended by well over 100

representatives of the O.S. advanced ceramics industry, as well

as representatives from universities and government agencies,

revealed considerable interest in such an action as the next

step in a series that could ultimately lead to one or more

industry-industry cooperative research ventures under the

rubric of the National Cooperative Research Act of 1984.

As you are aware, representatives from

ceramic-producing and user firms met to assess the

competi tiveness of U.S. structural and electronics advanced

ceramics industries and to discuss the types of cooperative

research programs that would be needed to improve U.S.

competitiveness. A high degree of interest was expressed in

undertaking cooperative research. The Conference also provided

an excellent opportunity to exchange views on how government

and academia might be supportive of industrial efforts in this

vitally important and essential area. Copies of the Workshop

summaries are enclosed for your information.

It is envisioned that this Steering Committee would

review the Conference findings and discuss and recommend the

next steps that might be taken by high-level corporate planners

and decision makers to bring about one or more cooperative

research ventures under the 1984 Act, embracing generic

research in both structural and electronic ceramics.

116
The Honorable D. Bruce Merrifield

August 12, 1985

page 2

We would greatly appreciate the active involvement of your

office in facilitating the convocation of such a Steering

Committee. The membership of this Committee is now being

established, and this information will be sent to you and your

staff. As representatives of the Conference, we stand ready to

share the findings of the Conference with the Steering

Committee, but we recognize that we, personally, may or may not

participate in the Steering Committee, depending upon the

wishes of industry.

Thank you for your interest and anticipated assistance.

Sincerely,

Joseph N. Panzarino

Director of Research

High Performance Ceramics Division

Norton Company

Robert J. Stokes

Principal Staff Scientist

Physical Sciences Center

Honeywell, Inc.

Richard M. Spriggs

Senior Staff Officer

National Materials Advisory Board

National Research Council

Enclosures
UNITEO STATES DEPARTMENTOF COMMERCE

The Assls«an« Secretary for Productivity,

Technology end Innovetion

Wasltingcon. OC. S0S30

(202J377-19&4

OCT 1 11S85

Dc. Richard M. Spriggs

Senior Staff Officer

National Materials Advisory Board

2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20418

Dear Dr. Spriggs:

I've very pleased that you are taking the initiative to follow up

the excellent work accomplished at the July Conference at the

National Bureau of Standards. Your participation contributed a great deal to the success of the conference and I believe your

idea of forming an Industrial Steering Committee as a next step is

an excellent one.

We will be glad to work with you to foster a continuing dialogue

within the ceramics industry, including hosting a meeting of the

Industrial Steering Committee. Let me or Lanse Felker know when

you are ready and don't hesitate to ask if there is anything else

we can do to assist you.

Sincerely.

D. Bruce Merrifieia

Original letters sent to:

Dr. Joseph N. Panzarino

Dr. Robert J. Stokes

118
APPENDIX

COKFEBENCE PBOGBAH

Tuesday, July 9

7:00 p.m. Early Registration and Mixer

Gaithersburg Marriott Hotel

Wednesday, July 10

8:00 a.m. Registration

Green Auditorium

National Bureau of Standards

I OVERVIEW

Session Chairman:

D. Bruce Merrifield

Assistant Secretary for Productivity, Technology and

Inno vat ion

Department of Commerce

8 : ^5 Welcome

Ernest Ambler

Director, National Bureau of Standards

8:50 Conference Goals

D. Bruce Merrifield

Assistant Secretary for Productivity, Technology

and Innovation

9:00 Advanced Materials In the National Economy

Honorable Don Ritter (R-PA)

U.S. House of Representatives

9:^0 Advanced Ceramics; Challenges and Opportunities

for U.S. Industry

Albert R.C. Westwood

Corporate Director - Research and Development

Martin Marietta Corporation

10:20 Break

121
II INFORMATION BASE

Session Chairman:

Lyle H. Schwartz

Director, Center for Materials Science

National Bureau of Standards

10:45 U.S. Competitive Position

Michael T. Kelley

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Basic Industries

International Trade Administration

Department of Commerce

11:15 Technological and Economic Assessments

S . L . Blum

Vice President

Charles River Associates, Inc.

11:45 Market Opportunities

Julius Harwood

President

Ovonic Synthetic Materials Co.

III COOPERATIVE MECHANISMS AND RESPONSE

Session Chairman:

Egils Milbergs

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Productivity,

Technology and Innovation

Department of Commerce

1:15 Forces of Change in the Industrial Sector

D. Bruce Merrifield

Assistant Secretary for Productivity,

Technology and Innovation

Department of Commerce

1 : 45 Forms of Industrial Cooperation; Case Studies

Lansing R. Felker

Director, Industrial Technology Partnerships

Program

Department of Commerce

2:15 Industry/University Interactions

John B. Wachtman, Jr.

Director, Center for Ceramics Research

The Rutgers State University

122
2:45 Industry/Government Interactions

Ora E. Smith

Senior Policy Analyst

Office of Science and Technology Policy

3:15 Break - reconvene for individual workshops

IV CONCURRENT WORKSHOPS ON INDUSTRIAL COOPERATION

3:30 Workshop #1 on Structural Ceramics

Cha ir man : Joseph N. Panzarino

Director of Research

High Performance Ceramics Division

Norton Company

Workshop #2 on Electronic Ceramics

Chairman:

Robert J. Stokes

Principal Staff Scientist

Honeywell, Physical Sciences Center

5:30 Adjourn

7:30 Buffet Dinner

Gaithersburg Marriott Hotel

Thursday, July 11

V A NATIONAL AGENDA FOR ADVANCED CERAMICS

Cha ir man : Richard M. Spriggs

Senior Staff Officer

National Materials Advisory Board

Panel Members:

Joseph N. Panzarino

Director of Research

High Performance Ceramics Division

Norton Company

Robert J. Stokes

Principal Staff Scientist

Honeywell, Physical Sciences Center

Lansing R. Felker

Director, Industrial Technology Partnerships Program

Department of Commerce

123
00

00

30

30

30

30

a.m. Reconvene; individual review of summary workshop

statements

Summary Remarks

Workshop Chairmen

General Discussion

Consensus Views and the Next Steps

Panel Members

p.m. Lunch

Depart, or NBS Ceramic Laboratory Tours

124
BACKGROUND REPORTS

The following publications and documentation were provided to participants of the conference as being especially

pertinent to the subject of the meeting:

The New Climate for Joint Research, Conference Proceedings, May 13, 1983 . Sponsored by U.S. Department of

Commerce, Office of the. Assistant Secretary for Productivity,

Technology and Innovation (1984).

Lansing Felker, Cooperative Industrial R&D; Funding the

Innovation Gap, Bell Atlantic Quarterly I, No. 2, Winter

(1984).

Large Scale Industrial Partnerships, U.S. Department of

Commerce brochure prepared by the Office of Productivity,

Technology and Innovation, (1984).

National Cooperative Resarch Act of 1984, Public Law

98-462, 98th Congress.

A Competitive Assessment of the U.S. Advanced Ceramics

Industry, Industry Analysis Division, Office of Industry

Assessment, Assistant Secretary for Trade Development, U.S.

Department of Commerce, March (1984), NTIS Assession Number

PB84-1 62288

.

Technological and Economic Assessment of Advanced Ceramic

Materials, Vol. I-VI, Prepared by Charles River Associated,

Inc., August (T984); available NTIS-No NBS GCR 84-470- (

1 -6 )

.

125
SfBOfSH <liUO«O3l0Aa

' «i »::.; «-»

’ * • ' ' '"' ’*’' -*’'•-' ' - - • ‘ ‘ ^ . «, ^ *w

XX»a »qaO m>1^4vcinnl

^‘;'^ >t^ivX3:D'UbWl 'i*»w4oo'td, »P*i&«'»93

'ii-4SNPI?ilf'-«ta IfrtWiW , '%^:'l7if

' fi

' f,if^~''~^

,

, ,;‘" ^ Ci^e rf *,fvd i^^«a^X iO'/ff,. .;t8<>Xo«rto»T

wfiJ. DlidiJ^*? ri:oa£e:'3fi «Tvii24^sq:CH5D i«'iiai4fla

^i> •*' ri.^

, 'ft'S"® 'i|fW0;9 . rtX '^*.-S'5-1il *• &*? __ I «

^ ' “ '^'^.|H|'

,

' ;b s 9 4« V tyA” t' 9t1J( Ic 4:nj9i^i46<>«eA s.vl 4 J:4 9qwoO A

.Sv^'V /4ifim4oiey#arB nol fns4&lp'«£ io*Jel*eA ,4nBBff«B8aA J

na^nuM fepnalBiROD: lo 4n»(f jr-faqaa

,,,

^ ®

' "'

;;vvr',, ^j|.v;l b»oin«¥4&A' “So ; xAaffleaeesA pimorfptsa Dna XaDtaoioxfrtsaT

'^A *'*, t,©4 aI yd b®*jBQ«"i^ ,1V-I yXoVrj, aisiiaiaH

.t,^- sXde^i'iais j«U8uA ,.oaI
BIOGRAPHIES

ERNEST AMBLER

Ernest Ambler is the eighth Director of the National Bureau

of Standards. He joined NBS in 1953 and has worked throughout his career to make NBS an increasingly valuable

scientific and technical resource for industry, business,

government, education, and the public. As Director of NBS,

Dr. Ambler leads the Nation’s measurement Laboratory in the

physical sciences and engineering. As a scientist, he has

contributed directly to the state-of-the-art in measurement

technology. His expertise in nuclear physics and cryogenics

formed the basis in 1956 for a cooperative effort that

disproved the law of parity conservation, a concept that

nuclear scientists had adhered to for more than-30 years.

This pioneering project confirmed experimentally the

theoretical work of Nobel Prize winners T.D. Lee and C.N.

Yang. As an administrator. Dr. ‘Ambler has helped guide

Bureau operations and policies to improve the efficiency with

which NBS fulfills its mission. Dr. Ambler is a member of

the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a fellow of the American Physical Society, and as Director -of

NBS, is ex officio President of the National Conference on

Weights and Measures. He was commissioned by the Governor of

Maryland in *1983 to serve on Maryland’s High Technology

Round-table. Dr. Ambler is the recipient of numerous honors,

awards, and fellowships including: the Department of

Commerce Gold Medal, the NBS Stratton Award, Nuffield Fellow

of Oxford University, the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial

Foundation Fellowship Award, the John Price Wetherill Medal

of the Franklin Institute, the Washington Academy of Sciences

Award, the Arthur S. Flemming Award, the William A. Wildhack

Award, and the President’s Award for Dist inqu ished Federal

Civilian Service. He authored 52 publications and holds a patent for low temperature refrigeration apparatus and

pr oce sse s

.

Born in Bradford, Yorkshire, England, in 1923, Dr. Ambler

earned his B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. in physics at Oxford

University before coming to the National Bureau of Standards.

S.L. BLUM

S.L. Blum is Vice President at Charles River Associates. He

has served as Vice President of Northern Energy Corporation

and as Director of Advanced Planning at the MITRE

Corporation. Prior to that he was Vice President of ITT Research Institute and Manager of Advanced Materials at

Raytheon. He received his B.S. from Alfred University in ceramic engineering and his ScD. in ceramics from MIT.

127
He is now a Commissioner on the Commission for Engineering

and Technical Systems of the National Academy of Science and

Engineering and has served as Chairman of the National Materials Advisory Board of the National Academy of Science and

Engineering. He has been on the Materials Board of the

Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress, and the

Visiting Committee of both MIT and ITT. He was a founder of

the Electronics Division of the American Ceramic Society and

served as chairman of various committees and as Vice

President of the Society. Dr. Blum is well known in the ceramics industry and has about 35 years experience in technology, business and planning in the materials area. His

experience ranges from research and development to plant operation and product market analysis. He has worked in electronic ceramics refractories, glass and advanced ceramics and

has set up laboratories and ceramic production lines.

LANSING R. FELKER

Lansing R. Felker is currently Director of the Industrial

Technology Partnerships Program, of the Office of Productivity, Technology and Innovation, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Prior to this, he has had broad experience in Government: as

a budget examiner in the Military Division of the Office of

Management and Budget; as International Logistics Negotiator

for^ the Office of the Secretary of Defense (where he focused

on the export of aerospace equipment); as an international

trade specialist for the Department of Commerce; and as a policy analyst in the Department of Energy. Outside the Government, he was an investment adviser to Wall Street for a number of years.

Mr. Felker was educated at the University of Chicago where he

took his Bachelor's and Master's degrees, the latter in

political science, specializing in military strategy and foreign policy. He is an ex-Naval Aviator.

JULIUS J. HARWOOD

Julius J. Harwood is Vice President of Energy Conversion

Devices, Inc., and President of Ovonic Synthetic Materials

Co

.

He retired from Ford Motor Company at the end of 1983 as

Director, Materials Sciences Laboratory, Research Staff,

which he occupied since 1975. Prior to that he was Director,

Physical Sciences; Manager, Research Planning; . Assistant

Director, Materials Sciences; and Manager of the Metallurgy

Department with the Ford Research Laboratories. Before

joining Ford in I960, he was associated with the Office of

128
Naval Research as Head of its Metallurgy Branch, and with

leaving ONR for Ford, the Advanced Research Projects Agency

(DOD).

Mr. Harwood is a Fellow of the American Society for Metals,

the Metallurgical Society of AIME, the AAAS , and the

Engineering Society of Detroit. He served as President of

the Metallurgical Society, President of the American

Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers,

and a past member of the Board of Directors of AIME. He has

published over 70 articles and is the editor of 5 books in

the field of materials management research.

Mr. Harwood is a member (and past Chairman) of the Board of

Control of Michigan Technological University. He serves as a Professor of the Engineering faculty of Wayne State

University and is a Chairman of the Board of Visitors to the

Engineering College of R.P.I. In the past he served on

Engineering Advisory Committees to the University of

Pittsburgh, Carnegie Tech., Vanderbilt, M.I.T., and

Penn sy Ivan ia

.

Mr. Harwood was elected a member of the National Academy of

Engineering in 1977. He was (1977-1979) Chairman of the

National Materials Advisory Board. He also serves on the

Science Advisory Council for the College of the City of New

York. He was a member of the first metallurgical exchange

delegation with the People’s Republic of China (sponsored by

AIME).

MICHAEL T. KELLEY

Michael T. Kelley is currently Deputy Assistant Secretary of

Commerce for Basic Industries. Prior to this Mr. Kelley

served as an Expert Consultant to the Assistant Secretary of

Commerce for International Trade Development. Before joining

the Department of Commerce, he served as Deputy Assistant

Secretary in the Office of Congressional Affairs, U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE), having responsibility for

coordinating relations between DOE and the Congress.

Earlier, Mr. Kelley was Assistant to the Chairman for

Government Affairs of the Houston Natural Gas Corporation.

He has had extensive government relations experience with a number of corporate firms in Washington, DC. In addition to

his work with the Houston Natural Gas Corporation, he worked

for the Union Camp Corporation, the Babcock Wilcox Company,

and as staff assistant to Rep. Silvio 0. Conte (R-MA). Mr.

Kelley received a B.A. in American History from Fairfield

University in Fairfield, Connecticut, and he has done

advanced degree work in U.S. diplomatic history at Georgetown

University. He is married with two children and resides in

McLean, Virginia.

129
D. BRUCE MERRIFIELD

D. Bruce Merrifield is currently Assistant Secretary of

Commerce for Productivity, Technology and Innovation. Most

recently, he was Vice President of Technology and Venture

Management for The Continental Group. He is a former

Director and President-elect of The Industrial Research

Institute; he also has been Chairman of the Board of the IRI

Research Corporation and is a former Trustee and Chairman of

the Research Council of The American Management Association.

Currently, he is a member of The Directors of Industrial

Research, and a Fellow of both The American Association for

Advancement of Science and of The Institute of Chemists.

Dr. Merrifield also has been a member of the Advisory Board

for the Binational Research and Development Foundation with

Israel and of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Trade Mission

to the People's Republic of China. He has served as a Science Advisor to the Jordanian government and as a member

of the Department of Defense transition teams. Dr.

Merrifield is a graduate of Princeton University ahd holds

Master and Doctoral degrees in Physical Organic Chemistry

from the University of Chicago.

EGILS MILBERGS

Egils Milbergs is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Productivity, Technology and Innovation at the U.S.

Department of Commerce. Mr. Milbergs recently completed a special assignment as Executive Director of the President's

Commission on Industrial Competitiveness. He joined the

Commerce Department in 1981 as Associate Deputy Secretary and

the first Director of the Office of Productivity, Technology

and Innovation. He served on President Reagan's transition

team as Policy Advisor on Business Regulations.

Before joining the DOC, Mr. Milbergs was employed by SRI

International (formerly Stanford Research Institute) where he

managed research and consulting programs in science and

technology policy, commercialization of federally- funded R&D,

and the strategic business environment. He led a major study

of "Issues of the Eighties," and developed a nationally

recognized presentation on the future business environment.

Prior to this, Mr. Milbergs served as a program and

management analyst with the Office of Management and Budget

and the President's Advisory Council on Executive

Organization (Ash Council) to develop proposals for

reorganizing economic, trade and regulatory functions. Mr.

Milbergs received his degree from Harvard University where he

130
studied public policy and economics. He is also a member of

numerous organizations including the National Advisory

Council on Continuing Education and the National Conference

for the Advancement of Research.

JOSEPH N. PANZARINO

Joseph N. Panzarino is Director of Research and Development,

High Performance Ceramics at the Norton Company. He received

his B.S. from the U.S. Naval Academy in Electrical/Mechanical

Engineering in 1958, and he received his Ph.D. from Ohio

State University in Ceramic Engineering in 1967.

Prior to joining Norton Company, he held vaios positios with

Corning Glass Works involving research on electronic

materials, glass/ceramic materials, bio-ceramic materials,

coatings, strengthening mechanisms.

He is a member of the American Ceramic Society, National

Institute of Ceramic Engineers, and Society of Sigma Xi and

has 7 publications and 10 patents.

DON RITTER.

Don Ritter, first elected in 1978, is serving his fourth term

in the U.S. House of Representatives, in which he represents

Pennsylvania’s 15th District.

He earned his master's and doctor of science degrees from the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and his bachelor of

science degree from Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA. Before

coming to Congress, he taught at Lehigh University and later

managed the development of new research programs there.

Ritter belongs to the American Society for Metals (ASM), the

American Institute of Chemists (AIC), and the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE). He was chosen in 1983

to receive the ASM's Distinguished Life Membership award and

was named to the AIC honor scroll. In 1981 Ritter presented

the Roy V. Wright lecture of the-ASME. Ritter also is a member of the honorary societies Sigma XI Tau Beta Pi and also

is ex officio member of the board of associates of Muhlenberg

College, and MIT’s Political Science Visiting Committee.

Ritter serves on the House energy and Commerce Committee and

two of its subcommittees; Commerce, Transportation and Tourism, and Energy Conservation and Power. He is the author of

nationally-recognized legislation in the area of regulatory

reform. Ritter serves on the executive committee of the

House Steel Caucus and the steering committees of the House

Travel and Tourism Caucus and the House Textile Caucus. He is

a member of the American Security Council.

131
Ritter is a member of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, better known as the Helsinki Commission,

which monitors the performance of Soviet bloc governments in

human rights areas. Also, Ritter is co-chairman of the Ad Hoc

Committee on the Baltic States and Ukraine.

In 1980 and 1982 the National Alliance of Senior Citizens inducted him into the Golden Age Hall of Fame for "concern,

compassion and understanding of the unique problems of America’s senior community." He is also a member of the American

Association of Retired Persons.

S.J. SCHNEIDER

Samuel J. Schneider is Special Assistant to the Director,

Institute for Materials Science and Engineering, National

Bureau of Standards. He received a B.S. Degree and a (honorary) Professional Degree both in ceramic engineering

from the University of Missouri at Rolla. His professional

career began as a research engineer at Lac lede -Chr i s t

y

Refractories Co. Following U.S. Army Service, he joined the

National Bureau of Standards as a research chemist (ceramics)

where he has worked on the phase equilibria and chemistry of

refractory materials and on the techniques of measurement of

high temperature materials. Before his present position, Mr.

Schneider was Deputy Chief of the Inorganic Materials

Division, NBS . He has served on many national and

internatio-nal committees and task forces, especially

concerned with the behavior of refractories in energy

applications. Mr. Schneider, a member of the American

Ceramic Society, Keramos, NICE, and ASTM, has been the editor

of two books, has organized 10 international conferences and

has more than 50 technical publications and 40 invited

lectures to his credit. He received the Department of

Commerce Silver Medal Award, four NBS Special Achievement

Awards, the ASTM Award of Merit, and the American Ceramic

Society Refractories Award.

-LYLE H. SCHWARTZ

Lyle H. Schwartz is the Director, Institute for Materials

Science and Engineering, National Bureau of Standards and is

responsible for NBS materials science and standards programs.

This involves over 375 NBS scientists, engineers, technicians

and support personnel and an annual budget of over $31M. In

addition, the programs involve approximately 250 visiting

scientists annually from industry, academe, other Federal

laboratories and foreign scientific organizations.

13 2
From 1979 to 1984, Dr. Schwartz was Director, Materials

Research Center, Northwestern University; 1972 to 1984,

Professor, Materials Science and Engineering Department,

Northwestern University; 1 964 to 1 972 , Assoc iate/Ass istant

Professor, Materials Science and Engineering Department,

Northwestern University; 1971 to 1973, Visiting Scientist,

Bell Telephone Laboratories (on leave from Northwestern

University); 1965, Visiting Scientist, Argonne National

Laboratory (summer research program); 1963"1964, National

Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Paris.

Dr. Schwartz received his BSc in 1959 and Ph.D. in 1963 from

Northwestern University and has published 67 articles in the

areas of Metallurgy and Diffraction. Professional Society

Membership includes the American Crystallographic

Association, the American Society for Metals and the

Materials Research Society.

ORA SMITH

Ora Smith is the Industrial Research Institute Fellow in the

White House Science Office. Prior to that he was Research

Director at Rockwell International in charge of research in

physics, chemistry, mathematics and computer and information

sciences. He has also worked as an environmental engineer,

lawyer and founded a consulting firm. Ora received his B.S.

and M.S. degrees in mechanical engineering from MIT and a J.D. from Harvard Law School.

DR. RICHARD M. SPRIGGS

Richard M. Spriggs is Staff Director of the Board on

Assessment of National Bureau of Standards Programs, a unit

of the National Research. Council (NRC) at the National

Academy of Sciences in Washington, DC, USA. He also serves

as a Senior Staff Officer and Project Director with the

National Materials Advisory Board ( NMAB ) at NRC. Prior to

this, Dr. Spriggs was Professor of Metallurgy and Materials

Science and Vice President for Administration at Lehigh

University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. He joined the Lehigh

facility in 1964, and served as Associate Director of the

Materials Research Center, Director of the Physical Ceramics

Laboratory, to the President and Vice President, and as Vice

President for Administration. Earlier, Dr. Spriggs had

served as a Senior Staff Scientist and Research Group Leader

of ceramics with AVCO Corporation.

Dr. Spriggs is the author or co-author of over 75 technical

articles that have appeared in domestic and international

periodicals, including chapters in ten books. In addition,

he is co-recipient of three U.S. patents. He received his

133
B.S. in ceramics from The Pennsylvania State University in

1952, and an M.S. in 1956 and a Ph.D. in 1958, both in

ceramic engineering, from the University of Illinois.

Dr. Spriggs is a Fellow of the American Ceramic Society and

is currently serving as Immediate Past President of the

Society. He is also past Vice President and former Treasurer

of the Society and is a member of NICE and CEC. He is a former chairman and trustee of the Basic Science Division. He

received the Ross Coffin Purdy Award of the Society in 196?

and the Hobart M. Kraner Award of the Lehigh Valley Section

of the Society in 1980. Dr. Spriggs is also a Fellow of the

(British) Institute of Ceramics, a former Trustee of the

Federation of Materials Societies, and elect member of the

International Institute for the Science of Sintering.

ROBERT J. STOKES

Robert J. Stokes is Principal Staff Scientist in Honeywell's

Physical Sciences Center, Bloomington, Minnesota. Dr. Stokes

is responsible for diverse research on the behavior of

materials in electronic and electro-optical devices.

From 1982 to 1984, as Section Head of the Materials Research

Laboratory Section, Division of Materials Research, National

Science Foundation, he was responsible for management of a large national research effort at fourteen major universities

and four national research facilities. From 1977 to 1981 , as

Manager, Materials and Processes Department, Honeywell

Corporate Technology Center, Dr. Stokes was responsible for

mater ials--micropackag ing , infrared optical materials, the

electrochemistry of ma te r ia 1 s--ener gy storage, mechanical

proper t ie s--e lec tr on i c ceramics and the development of

characterization tools for surface analysis.

From 1967 to 1977, as a Manager of the Materials Science Department at the Honeywell Corporate Research Center, he was

responsible for research on projects on crystal growth,

ceramic fabrication an the magnetic, mechanical, electrical

and optical properties of materials.

Dr. Stokes joined the Honeywell Corporate Research Center in

1957. At that time he performed basic research studies on

the mechanical properties of crystalline solids with

emphasis

.

In recognition of his outstanding contributions to ceramic

science. Dr. Stokes received the Ross Coffin Purdy Award of

the American Ceramic Society in 1965, and the H.W. Sweatt

Award from Honeywell in 1967. In 1968 he was elected a Fellow of the American Ceramic Society. He has been named

Sosman Memorial Lecturer, American Ceramic Society, 1976.

134
He has served as Editorial Chairman, Basic Science Division

of the American Ceramic Society. He has served as Chairman,

National Academy of Sciences Evaluation Panel for the

Inorganic Materials Division, National Bureau of Standards

and has served as a member of the NSF Advisory Committee for

Materials Research. He is presently Co-Chairman of the

Department of Energy Group on Future Directions for

Structural Ceramics Research. He is Co-Chairman of the 1985

Materials Research Society Conference on Inorganic Materials.

He is widely recognized as an authority on the mechanical and

physical properties of ceramics and is frequently invited to

present papers and seminars. He is the author of 60 publications.

JOHN B. WACHTMAN, JR.

JOHN B. WACTHMAN, JR. is Distinguished Professor of Ceramics

and Director of the Center for Ceramics Research at Rutgers

University, Pisca’taway, New Jersey. He recently completed a distinguished career of 32 years with the U.S. National

Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, Maryland. From 1978 to

1983 Dr. Wachtman was Director of the Center for Materials

Science at NBS. A native of South Carolina, he holds the

B.S. and M.S. degrees from Carnegie Institute of Technology

and the Ph.D. degree (physics) from the University of

Maryland. His areas of interest include solid state science,

ceramics, mechanical properties, an*d effective utilization of

inorganic materials. His honors and awards include the Gold

Medal of the Department of Commerce, the Sosman Memorial

Lecture Award, and the Hobart Kraner Award of ,the American

Ceramic Society, of which he was President from 1978 to 1979.

He is also a past president of the Federation of Materials

Societies. He was elected a member of the National Academy

of Engineering 1976, and in 1983 received the Distinguished

Federal Executive Award from the President of the United

States.

ALBERT R.C. WESTWOOD

Albert R.C. Westwood is Corporate Director--Research and Development for Martin Marietta Corporation. He received his

B.Sc., Ph.D. and D.Sc. degrees from the University of

Birmingham, England. He joined Martin Marietta Laboratories

(then RIAS) in 1958, becoming its Director in 1974 and assuming his present position in January 1984. He has published

well over 100 technical papers, mostly concerned with

environment-sensitive mechanical behavior and, lately, R&D

management, and has presented numerous keynote and invited

lectures around the world. His scientific contributions have

been recognized by a variety of awards and Fellowships,

including the Beilby Gold Medal (1970) and election to the

National Academy of Engineering (NAE) (1980). Current

professional responsibilities include the Commission on Engi135
136
neering and Technical Studies of the National Research Council, the Board of Directors of the Industrial Research

Institute, the Board of Directors of the Metallurgical Society, and Advisory Councils to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, The School of Arts and Sciences at The Johns Hopkins

University and School of Engineering at Maryland, and to the

Foreign Secretary of the National Academy of Engineering.

137
, , ‘ *i =«
PABTrCTPANTS

Joan Adams

Analyst

Of^’lce of Technology Assessment

U.S. Congress

Washington, DC 20510

J. C. Agarwal

Vice President

Charles River Associates

200 Clarendon Street

Boston, MA 02116

Rick Arons

Manager

Celanese

86 Morris Avenue

Summit, NJ 0901

R. R. Baker

Engineer

Ford Research

3^819 Lyndon

Livonia, MI I48l5l4

P. W. Beamer

Director of Marketing—Government

GTE Products Corporation

100 Endlcott Street

Danvers, MA 01923

J. M. Bind

Director—New Materials &

Product Development

Pechiney Corporation

475 Steamboat Rd

Greenwich, CT 06830

S. L. Blum

Vice President

Charles River Associates, Inc.

200 Clarendon Street

Boston, MA 02116

D. B. Butrymowicz

Scientific Asst, to Director

National Bureau of Standards

Center for Materials Science

B308 Materials Building

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Don Call

Plant Manager

Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.

P. 0. Box 798

Quapaw, OK 74363

Mario Cellarosi

Physicist

National Bureau of Standards

A247 Materials Building

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Uma Chowdhry

Research Supervisor

E. I. DuPont Experimental Station

Bldg. 356, Room 303

Wilmington, DE 19898

Clayton M. Christensen

President

CPS Corporation

128 Spring Street

Lexington, MA 07178

Tze-Jer Chuang

Physicist

National Bureau of Standards

'A331 Materials Bldg.

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Harry E. Cook

Director, Automotive Research & Technical Planning

Chrysler Corporation

12000 Chrysler Drive

Detroit, MI 48288

Dave Cronin

Trans-Tech, Inc.

5520 Adamstown Road

Frederick, MD 21710

Peter Cukor

Senior Technical Analyst

GTE Laboratories, Inc.

40 Sylvan Road

Waltham, MA 02254

Sandy Dapkunas

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20545

139
1

I

Paul Davis

Vice President, Marketing

General Ceramics, Inc.

Greenwood Avenue

Haskell, NJ 07^120

R. C. Devries

Inorganic Chemist

General Electric Company

GE R&D Center, Box 8

Schenectady, NY 12301

Walter H. Dolbier

Director, Business Development

W. R. Grace & Co.

Dewey and Almy Chemical Division

55 Hayden Avenue

Lexington, MA 02173

Alan Dragoo

Research Chemist

National Bureau of Standards

A247 Materials Building

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Robert J. Eagan

Manager, Chemistry & Ceramics

Sandia National Laboratories

P. 0. Box 5000, Dept. 1840

Albuquerque, NM 87185

Jim Everitt

Contracts Manager

Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.

P. 0. Box 798

Quapaw, OK 74363

Andrew D. Farrell

Director, Govt. Program Development

IIT Research Institute

1825 K Street, N.W. , Suite 1101

Washington, DC 20006

Lansing R. Felker

Director, Industrial Technology

Partnerships Division

O.P.T.I

Room 481

6

U.S. Department of Commerce

1 4th & Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20230

Greg Fisher

Technical Services Manager

The American Ceramic Society,

65 Ceramic Drive

Columbus, OH 43214

Mark Fishier

Technical Director

Vensuvius Corp.

4604 Campbell's Run Road

Pittsburgh, PA 15205

Renee G. Ford

Consultant

Park Drive South

Rye, NY 10580

J. P. Fris

Union Carbide

L-4 Old Ridgedray Road

Danbury, CT 06815

Brian R. T. Frost

Senior Metallurgist

Argonne National Laboratory

9700 S. Cass Avenue

Argonne, IL 60439

Edwin Fuller, Jr.

Physicist

National Bureau of Standards

A247 Materials Building

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Robert Gattschall

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20545

Robert F. Gavin

Assoc. Intellectual Property Council

University of Michigan

225 West Engineering Bldg.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Shel Gelman

Manager, Performance Chem. Develop.

Stauffer Chemical Co.

Westport, CT 06881

William Glasgow

Market Manager

Union Carbide

Carbon Products Division

Box 2116

Cleveland, OH 44101

140
Stephen J. Goguen

Program Manager

U.S. Department of Energy

CE 131.2

Washington, DC 20037

Serge Cratch

Director, Vehicle, Powertrain and

Component Research Laboratory

For Motor Company

P. 0. Box 2053, Rm. S2098 SRLB

Dearborn, MI 48121-2053

Gene H. Haertllng

Vice President of Technical Staff

Motorola, Inc.

4800 Alameda Blvd., NE

Albuquerque, NM 87113

Robert Hard

Manager, New Product Development

Cabot Corporation

County Line Road

Boyertown, PA 19512

Kay Hardman-Rhyne

* Research Chemist

National Bureau of Standards

A247 Materials Building

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Roy V. Harrington

Vice President, Corporate Director

of Research

Ferro Corporation

7500 E. Pleasant Valley Rd.

Independence, OH 44131

Alan Hart

Senior Research Manager

Dow Chemical Co.

1776 Bldg.

Midland, MI 48640

Julius J. Harwood

President

Ovonic Synthetic Materials Company

1 1 00 West Maple

Troy, MI 48084

James H. Heasley

Associate Director of Research-,

Materials Science Research

Ferro Corporation

7500 E. Pleasant Valley Rd.

Independence, OH 44131

Steve Hellem

Executive Director

U.S. Advanced Ceramics Association

605 I4th Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20045

Thomas L. Henson

Director of Research & Engineering

GTE Products Corporation

Hawes Street

Towanda, PA 18848

Stephen Hsu

Chief, Inorganic Materials Division

National Bureau of Standards

A257 Materials Building

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Camden Hubbard

Research Chemist

National Bureau of Standards

A247 Materials Building

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Orville Hunter

Director of Research

AP Green Refractories Co.

Mexico, MO 65265

Thomas J. Hurley

Asst. Director R&D

J. T. Baker Chem. Co.

222 Red School Lane

Phillipsburg, NJ 08865

Robert H. Insley

Director, Research & Development

Champion Spark Plug Company

Ceramic Division

20000 Conner Avenue

Detroit, MI 48234

Patricia Janeway

Edi tor

Ceramic Industry

1350 E. Touhy Ave., Box 5080

Des Plaines, IL 60018

141
David W. Johnson, Jr.

Supervisor

AT&T Bell Laboratories

Room 6 D-305

Murray Hill, NJ 0797^

Alfred K. Jung

Technical Manager

Stauffer Chemical Co.

Livingston Street

Dobbs Ferry, NY 10522

Stephen Kalos

Senior Associate

Charles River Associates

200 Clarendon St.

Boston, MA 02116

Vincent Kamenicky

Director

Office of Chemicals & Appl. Products

U.S. Department of Commerce

International Trade Administration

Washington, DC 20230

Michael T. Kelley

Deputy Assistant Secretary

for Basic Industries

International Trade Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, DC 20230

Fred Kennard

AC Spark Plug Division

CM Corporation

Flint, MI 48556

George A. Kim

President

Edge Technolgoies, Inc.

4455 W. 62nd Street

Indianapolis, IN 46268

Alan G. King

Group Leader, Advanced Ceramics

Ferro Corporation

7500 E. Pleasant Valley Rd.

Independence, OH 44131

Jennifer Knowlton

Ceramic Engineer

Zenith Electronics

1000 Milwaukee Avenue

Glenview, IL 60025

Wallace R. Kornack

Assistant Director • Office of Science & Technology Policy

Executive Office of President

726 Jackson Place, N.W.

Washington, DC 20500

Fred F. Lange

Principal Scientist

Rockwell Science Center

P. 0. Box 1085

Thousand Oaks, CA 91360

Robert P. Larsen

Center for Transportation Research

Argonne National Laboratory

Bldg. 362-2B

9700 South Cass Avenue

Argonne, IL 60439

Peter Leblans

Assistant Scientific Attache

Netherlands Embassy

Scientific Office

4200 Llnnean Avenue

Washington, DC 20008

Richard L. Lehman

Professor of Ceramics “

I Rutgers University

P.O. Box 909 "

Piscataway, NJ 08817 ‘

H. D. Leigh

Assistant Professor

Department Ceramic Engineering

Clemson University

Olin Hall

Clemson, SC 29631

Edward Lenoe

Chief, Reliability Mechanics

AMMRC

Arsenal Street

Watertown, MA 02172

Marco Liem

Consultant

SAI

Box 3485, RD 3» Farlane Road

Reading, PA 19606

142
E. L. Llttauer

Director, Materials Sciences

Lockheed Palo Alto Research Lab.

0/93-01, Bldg. 201

3251 Hanover Street

Palo Alto, CA 9^304

T. L. Loucks

Vice President, Corp. Technology

Norton Company

120 Front Street

Worcester, MA 01608-1^46

James W. MacBeth

Market Development Manager

Sohio Engineered Materials Co.

Buffalo Avenue

Niagara Falls, NY 14302

Malcolm G. McLaren

Chairman of the Dept, of Ceramics

Rutgers University

P.O. Box 909

Piscataway, NJ 08854

C. L. Martin

Marketing Manager

3M

3M Center, 223-421-03

St. Paul, MN 55144

R. W. Matz

Ceramic Operations Coordinator

Champion Spark Plug

20000 Conner Avenue

Detroit, MI 48234

Paul C. Maxwell

Staff Science Consultant

Committee on Science & Technology

U. S. House of Representatives

2321 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

George Mayer

Director

Materials Science Division

Array Research Office

P.O. Box 12211

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Edward J. McCarthy

Vice President, Industrial Products

Rubber Manufacturers Association

1400 K Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

Chris McLeod

Alcoa Industry

Alcoa Technical Center

7th Street Road

Alcoa Center, PA 15069

J. R. Merhar

Market Development Manager

E. I. DuPont

Excelsior Building 2852-1

Wilmington, DE 19898

D. Bruce Merrifield

Assistant Secretary for Productivity,

Technology & Innovation

Room 4824

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, DC 20230

John L. Mihelich

Vice President Research

Amax Materials Research Center

P. 0. Box 1568

Ann Arbor, MI 48106

Egils Milbergs

Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Productivity, Technology & Innovation

U.S. Department of Commerce

1 4th & Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20230

Susan L. Miller

Technology Policy Analyst/Industrial

Liaison

O.P.T.I. - Room 481

6

U.S. Department of Commerce

1 4th & Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20230

James I. Mueller

Professor of Ceramic Engineering

University of Washignton

Materials Science & Engr. FB-10

Seattle, WA 98195

143
Sobhag Narain

Industry Economist

Office of Chemicals & Allied Products

International Trade Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, DC 20230

S. Natansohn

Senior Staff Scientist

GTE Laboratories, Inc.

^0 Sylvan Road

Waltham, MA 0225^

Dale E. Niesz

Manager, Materials Department

Battelle Columbus Laboratories

505 W. King Avenue

Columbus, OH ^13201

Frank V. Nolfi, Jr.

Branch Chief

U.S. Department of Energy

ER-131» Div, of Materials Science

Washington, DC 205^5

Andrew C. Nyce

Vice President, Metallurgy & Ceramics

Gorham International, Inc.

P. 0. Box 8

Gorham, ME 0^038

Joseph N. Panzarino

Director of Research

High Performance Ceramics Division

Norton Company

1 New Bond Street

Wor Chester, MA 01606-2698

Pellegrino Papa

Executive Scientist

Corning Glass Works

MP-21-4-1

Corning, NY 14831

William H. Payne

Technical Manager

E. I. DuPont Experimental Station

303 Building 356

Wilmington, DE 19898

H. R. Potts

Sr. Technical Staff Member

Mgr. Packaging Technology

IBM Corporation

Route 52, Bldg. 330-81

A

Hopewell Jet., NY 12533

C. P. Powell

Product Marketing Manager

Union Carbide Corporation

39 Old Ridgebury Road

Danbury, CT 068l 7-0001

F. Joseph Reid

GTE Laboratories

40 Sylvan Road

Waltham, MA 02254

Fred Reinhart T

Marketing Representative

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, MI 48109 '

Honorable Don Ritter w

(R-PA)

U.S. House of Representatives "J

Room 124 Cannon House Office Bldg.

Washington, DC 20515

Benedict P. Rosen I Executive Vice President |

AVX Corporation i

19th Avenue South 1

Myrtle Beach, SC 29577

Elaine Rothman

|

i Research Assistant ' ' Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Bldg. 8-425

Cambridge, MA 02139

Michael Rubin

Attorney Advisor

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, DC 20230

Maxine Savitz

Garrett Corporation

1625 Eye Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006
A. C. Schaffhauaer

Program Manager

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

P. 0. Box X

Oak Ridge, TN 37830

Gerard Scheyer

Vice President

ISCAR Ceramics, Inc.

20 Newburgh Road

Hackettstown , NJ 078^0

Llselotte J. Schioler

Research Ceramic Engineer

U.S. Array Materials &

Mechanics Research Center

AMXMR-MCS

Watertown, MA 02172

Norman B. Schmidt

Manager, New Product Development

Divisional Liaison

Carpenter Technology Corp.

P. 0. Box 662

Reading, PA 19603

Samuel J. Schneider

Special Assistant to Director

Center for Materials Science

National Bureau of Standards

B308 Materials Building

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Robert Schulz

Program Manager

U.S. Department of Energy

Transportation Systems

CE-131 Forrestal

Washington, DC 20585

Lyle H. Schwartz

Director

Center for Materials Science

National Bureau of Standards

B-308 Materials Building

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Murray A. Schwartz

Program Manager

U.S. Bureau of Mines

21101 E Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20241

Chi-Hung Shen

Supervisor—Machining

APMES, General Motor Corporation

G. M. Technical Center

Warren, MI 48090

Eric C. Skaar

Assistant Professor

Clemson University

106 Clarendon Dr.

Clemson, SC 29631

J. P. Skalny

Associate Director

Martin Marietta

1450 South Rolling Road

Baltimore, MD 21227

John W. Slaton

Senior Vice President

Corporate Development

Ferro Corporation

One Erieview Plaza

Cleveland, OH 44114

Ora Smith

0STP,NE0B Room 5026

17th and PA, N.W.

Washington, DC 20500

David Speser

Manager Technical Services

Advanced Refractory Technologies

699 Hertel Avenue

Buffalo, NY 14207

Richard M. Spriggs

Senior Staff Officer

National Materials Advisory Board

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue

Washington, DC 20418

Charles M. Standard

Project Manager

LTV Aerospace & Defense Company

P. 0. Box 225907

Dallas, TX 75265

Forrest 0. Stark

Director, Silicone Research

Dow Corning Corporation

P. 0. Box 994

Midland, MI 48640

145
i

Bruce Steiner

Materials Scientist

National Bureau of Standards

A247 Materials Building

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Candice Stevens

Nautilus Press

National Press Bldg.

Washington, DC 20006

Robert J. Stokes

Principal Staff Scientist

Honeywell, Physical Sciences Center

10701 Lyndale Avenue, South

Bloomington, MN 55^20

Karsten H. Styhr

Advanced Engineering St.

Airesearch Casting Company

19800 Van Ness

Torrance, CA 90509

Robert C. Sundahl, Jr.

Director, Materials Science

Signal Research Center, Inc.

50 E. Algonquin Road, Box 5016

Des Plaines, IL 60017-5016

Iran Thomas

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC 205^5

Earl R. Thompson

Assistant Director of Research

Technologies Research Center

Silver Lane

East Hartford, CT 06108

Arthur C. Thorsen

Director

Rockwell International Science Center

10^9 Camino Dos Rios

Thousand Oaks, CA 91360

Nancy J. Tighe

National Bureau of Standards

A2^7 Materials Building

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

James Wade

Vice President—Sales and Marketing

Coors Porcelain Co.

17750 W. 32nd Avenue

Golden, CO 80^01

Stanley I. Warshaw

Director

Office of Product Standards Policy

National Bureau of Standards

A-603 Administration Bldg.

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

| Albert R. C. Westwood

Corporate Director, R&D

Martin Marietta Corporation

1450 South Rolling Road

Baltimore, MD 21227

George Whitwell

Research Chemist

Stauffer Chemical Co.

Eastern Research Center

Dobbs Ferry, NY 10522

Jack Williams

Director

Office of Productivity, Technology

& Innovation

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, DC 20230

I

Wendell Williams

Professor

University of Illinois

Materials Research Lab

104 South Goodwin

Urbana, IL 61801

David G. Wirth

Vice President —Technical Operations,

Coors Porcelain Co.

17750 W. 32nd Avenue

Golden, CO 80401

Hisao Yamada

Sohlo Research Center

4440 Warrensville Center Road

Cleveland, OH 44128

146
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Many persons contrib*uted to the success of the

conference and the preparation of its proceedings. In

addition to the speakers, session and workshop chairmen,

and the principal organizers of the meeting there were

those whose efforts o,ften go unnoticed but warrant praise

and congratulations for a job well done. Special thanks

therefore, are due to Susan Miller (Office for

Productivity, Technology and Innovation) for her assistance

in planning and organization; to Kathy Stang and Judy

Wilson (NBS) for detailed conference planning and

logistics; and to Marsha Bowers, Denise Brown, Sue Gross,

CaRole Lamb, and Susan Roth (NBS) for their efficient

secretarial and clerical services.

147
148
SH.IUA wtv I-4C ul OfPT.

4. "^iTlE and subtitle

Conference Proceedings - "A National Prospectus on the Future of the

U.S. Advanced Ceramics Industry”

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET Ste mitructions/

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

85-3240

2. Performint Organ. Report NoJ 3. Publication Date

1986

5. AUThOR(S)

Ernest Ambler, Lyle H. Schwartz and Samuel J. Schneider

I. PERFORMING organization (If joint or other than NBS, see instructions)

national bureau of standards

department of commerce

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20234

7. Contract/Grant No.

I. Type of Report & Period Covereo

S. SPONSORING organization NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City, State, ZIP)

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

1 I Document describes a computer program; SF-I8S, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-<^ord or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here)

Advanced ceramics are a new generation of high performance materials,

widely believed to hold promise of mult i“b 111 ion dollar markets. The U.S.

competitive position, however, has been eroded in recent years with the

prognosis for the future equally dim. To address this problem, the

Department of Commerce held an industrially oriented conference,

July 10-11, 1985, at which leaders in the ceramic field assessed critical

competitive Issues from both a technological and business viewpoint and

developed approaches for Improved U.S. market posture. The Conference

considered electronic and structural advanced ceramic 'markets, with focus

on cooperative mechanisms for Industrial R&D. A consensus was reached on

the most critical areas for research and on the necessity for inter-and

Intra- Industrial collaboration. Assistance from DOC was requested to

facilitate the implementation of cooperative research ventures. This

report constitutes the Proceedings of the Conference and Includes the

papers presented and summary of the workshop sessions.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key

Advanced ceramics; Ceramic markets; Cooperative Industrial R&D, ope

Act of 1984; Electronic ceramics; Foreign competition; Structural cer

words by semicolon i. rative research

amics

13. availability 14. NO. OF

printed page

Iy i Unlimited

130

1

1 For Official Distribution, Do Not Release to NTIS

Order From Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington. D.C.

15. Price

20402.

[y~i Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield. VA. 22161 $16.95

u *C o r

“• t
J