Cost Comparisons of Oven and Electron-Beam Processing 

Using Activity-Based Modeling 

by Bernard F. Hart and James M. Sands 

ARL-TR-2961 April 2003 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
NOTICES 

Disclaimers 

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless 

so designated by other authorized documents. 

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the 

use thereof. 

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator. 
Army Research Laboratory 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5069 

ARL-TR-2961 April 2003 

Cost Comparisons of Oven and Electron-Beam Processing 

Using Activity-Based Modeling 

Bernard F. Hart and James M. Sands 

Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, ARL 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
ii

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
iii

Contents 

List of Figures iv

List of Tables iv

1. Introduction 1

2. Cost Model Development 2

2.1 Program Description........................................................................................................2 

2.2 Assumptions ....................................................................................................................7 

2.3 Cost of Curing .................................................................................................................9 

2.4 Simulations Results .......................................................................................................10 

3. Conclusions 13

4. References 16

Report Documentation Page 17
iv

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Cost model flow diagram for processing of VARTM composites using “oven” or 

“e-beam” to cure the composite structure..................................................................................3 

Figure 2. A typical EB facility layout including accelerator, processing, and shipping areas. ......6 

Figure 3. Typical arrangement for an (a) vertical processing scan horn and (b) processing 

platform for EB curing...............................................................................................................6 

Figure 4. EB penetration depth (in water) for selected commercial beam energies.......................8 

Figure 5. Production costs per square foot for EB ownership processing of flat panel 

composites (model 3)...............................................................................................................11 

Figure 6. EB processing of toll-based cure method for composite panels....................................12 

Figure 7. Production costs per square foot of composite panels for thermally cured systems 

in an oven.................................................................................................................................12 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Fixed cost data used to generate cost comparisons in EB vs. oven-cured VARTM 

composite panels......................................................................................................................10 

Table 2. Model simulation systems and processing parameters...................................................10 
1

1. Introduction 

In this report, a model compares the manufacturing costs associated with fabrication of a flatpanel glass composite plate using vacuum assisted resin transfer molding (VARTM) in 

combination with thermal oven curing or electron beam (EB) irradiation curing to process 

composite thermosets. By integrating process mapping, hierarchical event-driven simulation, 

and activity-based costing, the model determines the optimum conditions and the benefit or cost 

trade-offs associated with manufacturing performance composites using alternative curing 

technologies, such as EB curing. In the conclusion of the model evaluation, a determination is 

made that demonstrates the impact of resin cost on total manufacturing costs for the various 

components, and demonstrates how various scenarios from ownership to toll processing can be 

implemented by a manufacturer to keep total processing costs from EB curing relatively 

competitive with oven curing processes. 

The basic model implemented for the following analysis is based on Scott Jones’s co-injection 

resin transfer molding (CIRTM) model in SIMPROCESS* (1). SIMPROCESS integrates 

process mapping, hierarchical event-driven simulation, and activity-based costing into a single 

tool and allows accurate computation of industrial costs to be determined under various imposed 

constraints and economic conditions. Activity-based costing embodies the concept that a 

business is a series of interrelated processes, and that these processes consist of activities that 

convert inputs to outputs. The cost modeling approach manifests this concept and builds on it by 

organizing and analyzing cost information on an activity basis. Although maintaining accurate 

accounting of every possible scenario of processing for the manufacturing demonstration is not 

feasible, the cost model implemented is relatively comprehensive. Local cost data were 

collected for labor, equipment, electric, fabric, resin, freight, toll charges, and the Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) compliance cost (2). 

Dynamic computer models were designed for VARTM composite processing of S-2 Glass†

fabric using a vinyl ester and an EB resin with the option of oven or EB curing. Note that 

despite the understanding that autoclave processing is the worst-case pollution scenario, the 

model does not address this curing technology. The current emphasis on low-cost processing 

methods to develop thick-section composites compels a comparative study for traditional liquid 

molding rather than autoclave prepreg comparisons (3). The vacuum bagging employed by this 

process simulation was effective in minimizing hazardous air pollutant (HAP) levels to remain 

under the new MACT legislation of emitting no more than 10 tons/year of any single listed HAP 

at any single site, where a site is defined as a collection of related processing buildings (2). The 

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) legislation was 

 *

 CACI International, Inc., 1100 North Glebe Rd., Arlington, VA 22201. 

†

 S-2 Glass is a registered trademark of Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. 
2

implemented for U.S. industry in August 2001 and will begin to affect financial viability of 

commercial industries as early as 2005. 

In SIMPROCESS, a computer-generated manufacturing facility simulates the flow of raw 

materials and worker resources to create finished products using a three-shift working cycle that 

operates the plant 24 hr/day for 1 calendar year. Among the key advantages to EB processing is 

the high cost of tooling associated with traditional thermal processing methods. Because the cost 

of tooling varies significantly with part size, part complexity, and dimensional complexity, the 

model does not attempt to add to this complexity. Therefore, costs are developed for fixed costs 

associated with thermal vs. EB processing for flat panel composites. Since net cost per part will 

be the most significant change associated with changing fiber types, the cost model is developed 

with only S-2 Glass fabric as the cost baseline. The finished parts from the model include 

various surface area panels ranging from 10 to 100 ft2 (9290 to 92903 cm2), but keeping the 

thickness of all parts at a constant 0.75 in (1.9 cm). The impact of increasing surface area results 

in cost variations that are coupled with batch processing limitations for the thermal and EB cure 

techniques. 

2. Cost Model Development 

2.1 Program Description 

SIMPROCESS employs processes, resources, and entities to construct a business model. A 

production plan was set up in the model to include laborers, equipment, and materials with a best 

practices approach to manufacturing that avoids overconstraining the resources or entities (e.g., 

having a resource either too busy or idle). People, materials, and equipment are examples of 

resources, while orders, fabric, completed parts, and work-in-process are examples of entities. 

The basic flow diagram of the model is demonstrated in Figure 1. The model consists of three 

essential processing stages, which include preparation for manufacture and layup, curing, and 

finishing. Each of these segments contributes to the costs of manufacturing. However, due to 

the selected composite configuration, the greatest impact variables in the model include initial 

materials costs and equipment and curing costs. The steps occurring in each process phase of the 

model are described next. 

The first step in the model involves setting up the production run. At the outset of production, a 

work order is generated, work scheduled, and materials procured to achieve optimum processing 

flow. A 24-hr, 7 day/week manufacturing schedule was utilized in the model, so all capital 

resources are used to the optimum limits. Next, the manufacturing work area was set up, 

including the cutting station and layup areas. Although this condition does not contribute to 

materials costs in the modeling, the activity (time) is a cost item for the laborers employed to 

perform the activity, adding to the total cost of manufacturing.
3

Setup

Layup

Dry Fabric

Infusion

Vacuum

Bag

Resin 

Mix

Infuse 

Layup Dispose of

Materials

Part

Hazardous

Waste

Cure

Cure 2

E-beam

Cure

1st Stage

Cure

Cure 1

Industrial

Waste

HW

HW

IW

IW

Finishing

Trim/Machine

Polish

Start

Finish

Inspect

Oven IW

Cure

Setup Work

Environment

Generate

Fabric

Layers

VOC’s

Debulk Part

Return

To Setup

Tool

Setup

Layup

Dry Fabric

Infusion

Vacuum

Bag

Resin 

Mix

Infuse 

Layup Dispose of

Materials

Part

Hazardous

Waste

Cure

Cure 2

E-beam

Cure

1st Stage

Cure

Cure 1

Industrial

Waste

HW

HW

IW

IW

Finishing

Trim/Machine

Polish

Start

Finish

Inspect

Oven IW

Cure

Setup Work

Environment

Generate

Fabric

Layers

VOC’s

Debulk Part

Return

To Setup

Tool

Figure 1. Cost model flow diagram for processing of VARTM composites using “oven” 

or “e-beam” to cure the composite structure. 

Once the initial conditions for manufacturing are completed, the actual processing of materials 

components begins. Initially, the configurations of the manufactured part are determined, 

including number of layers of fabric required to make a part 0.75 in thick. With our selected part 

thickness, 29 layers of glass fabric were used. These parameters are passed along to the 

manufacturing cycle. The fabric layers required for assembling a part of a defined size are cut to 

size from the bolts and evaluated for quality assurance. The approved dry fabric pieces are 

stacked in the prescribed sequence, fiber aligned at the layup station, and placed into the part 

mold. Once the layer placement is inspected for quality, the dry fabric layup is completed. It 

should be noted that in addition to quality inspection, the model tracks scrap and poor quality 

materials that fail the inspection and is able to report waste materials amounts throughout the 

processing phase. As no resin materials are utilized to this point, waste fabric is considered an 

industrial waste, which is defined as nonhazardous materials waste from manufacturing 

production. Costs for disposal of the industrial wastes can therefore also be included in any 

detailed analyses. 

Once a dry preform is established, the infusion process begins. The distribution medium and peel 

ply layers are cut and added to the mold configuration. As the process is modeling VARTM, the 

top layer of the mold is a vacuum layer, which for this study will be a disposable vacuum media. 

The vacuum bag was cut and installed around the part. The gates, vents, and infusion and vacuum 
4

lines were set up and installed. Once the configuration is completed, the dry preform is 

evacuated and the vacuum bag seal inspected for leakage. 

After layup and mold preparations are complete, the resin mixture is prepared. Typical resin 

systems involve a two-component resin that is blended just prior to infusion. A limitation of the 

two-part resin is the limited processing window in which to infuse the part. The parameters 

associated with infusion time include the resin viscosity and the rate of change of viscosity, as 

well as any exothermic heat generated in the bulk resin. The model encompasses basic 

parameters for gelation time and initial resin viscosity to compute approximate infusion times for 

large parts. While the computation is not precise, a conservative estimate of total infusion time 

is achieved, which can be used to establish baseline production costs. During infusion, resin is 

supplied at atmospheric pressure. The pressure differential arising from the resin source at 

atmospheric pressure, along with the evacuated preform, stimulates resin impregnation of the 

fibrous preform. The infusion line was closed when the resin mixture started to gel. The parts 

were inspected after infusion. An additional feature of the production business model is included 

to track hazardous wastes and production wastes associated with the infusion process. As the 

raw materials in the resin are classified as hazardous materials, the wastes encountered with 

nonreacted resin are also considered hazardous wastes. Once the resin is cured into a solid 

waste, however, it is no longer considered hazardous material but is tracked as part of the 

industrial waste contribution to manufacturing. Such items as vacuum bags, distribution media, 

infusion lines, and incomplete parts are hazardous wastes. However, the manufacturing practice 

generally involves carrying infusion lines and infusion media into the curing phase with the 

composite part. As a result, the final status of most of these media is as industrial wastes. 

It is worth noting that even during infusion, the EB and thermal systems behave somewhat 

differently, and therefore, each system is treated to a different curing schedule. The vinyl ester 

resin used in creating baseline data for the composite manufacturing is a two-part resin that has a 

limited out-time once mixed. By contrast, the EB resin selected for this study can be either a 

one-part resin with a low viscosity and no gelation without EB treatment, or a two-part resin that 

is handled similarly to vinyl esters with a limited processing time, but which fully gels at room 

temperature. In the case of the EB resins, the assumption is employed that the resin does gel 

before EB is applied, and therefore, the assembled part and all infusion and layup components 

need not be shipped to the EB facility for toll-based curing, nor transported to the EB curing 

stage for ownership-based curing. In all cases, the EB layups are not heated, and therefore, no 

oven is used for EB manufacturing. In recent experimental developments, however, it has been 

demonstrated that oven postcuring of EB cured resins produces improved materials performance 

in the final composites, without sacrificing dimensional tolerance advantages associated with EB 

curing (4, 5). 

After infusion, thermal cured assemblies were cured for 2 hr at 140 °F (First Stage Cure). The 

purpose of this curing stage is to stage the resin into a lightly linked gel state. The lower 

processing temperature prevents rapid acceleration of the thermal curing, which can result in 
5

exothermic conditions and run away reactions that cause explosive or combustive conditions. 

Once the materials are staged through vitrification, the energy associated with crosslink formation 

in the resins is released at a much slower rate, allowing for higher postcure temperatures. A similar 

limit exists for EB cured resins; however, in the case of EB cure, changing the applied dose-rate 

controls the exothermic heating. Dose rates from 0.5 to 10 Mrad/pass are common processing 

ranges for composites, with thicker parts requiring lower dose/pass equivalents. Also, for two-part 

EB resins, the room temperature staged resin is sufficient to prevent substantial exothermic 

conditions from developing, allowing higher dose/pass for initial treatments. The EB cure cycle 

assumes a total applied dose of 20 Mrad, a number demonstrated to fully convert accessible 

functional groups in all the resins developed for EB processing. As a cost factor, the total number 

of passes required to reach an applied dose of 20 Mrad increases the processing time for EB curing, 

and contributes to higher costs and greater user burden on the EB resource. The minimum number 

of passes is used in the model, so a best-costs scenario is created for EB. 

The infusion media and infusion lines were discarded after this first cure operation for the vinyl 

ester parts, while these materials were maintained throughout the processing phase for EB 

components. The thermally staged vinyl ester composites were separated from the mold after 

vitrification as vacuum pressure could be released without spring-back or deformations occurring 

to the structures. The mold was subsequently prepared and returned to the beginning of the 

manufacturing cycle. The EB system was fully cured under EB prior to returning the molds for 

reuse. It is relevant to note in this analysis, that because VARTM molding is used, no effort was 

undertaken to reduce mold costs for EB processing, despite the understanding that high-cost 

molding is among the cost savings for EB vs. conventional resin transfer molding. The VARTM 

aspect eliminates this advantage between the two test conditions selected. The next step in the 

thermal cure is a postcure of the vitrified parts. Parts were held for 3 hr at 250 °F in the oven. 

Another aspect of the processing that impacts the costs of manufacturing dramatically is the effect 

of batching in the curing phase. For the oven-cured vinyl esters, the batch size was dependent on 

both the oven size and the part size. The number of parts that were committed to the oven is based 

on the available volume and the oven-to-part dimension analysis. For the EB cure, the batch size 

was dependent on the vault configurations, the cart size, and the part size. Recognize also that 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) may be emitted during oven curing due to the open cure 

environment and the commercial formulations of the vinyl ester resins. The EB-cured part, 

however, does not have VOCs as the resins are designed with 100% nonvolatile elements, 

providing for improved environmental control. The cycle time for the EB curing depends on the 

applied dose, the part size, and the size of the track for the EB vault (e.g., number of carts in the 

processing train). A typical EB processing warehouse is shown in Figure 2, where the EB source 

is shielded to prevent radiation exposure to the users. The processing zone is reached through a 

conveyor system that translates the parts into a vault for curing. A vertically mounted EB horn 

inside a vault area is shown in Figure 3. The conveyor is also shown with a sample panel mounted 

in the beam path. The conveyor system can be either a pass through or directional type, as shown.
6

S h ip p in g /R eceiv in g

O p erator C on sole

A ccelerator

E arth B erm C onveyor

D osim etry

Drawing courtesy of Acsion Industries, Pinawa, MB, Canada. 

Figure 2. A typical EB facility layout including accelerator, processing, and shipping areas. 

a)

b)

Figure 3. Typical arrangement for an (a) vertical processing scan horn and (b) processing platform for EB 

curing. 

The advantages of vertically mounted processing are increased processing size capability and 

potential for rotational design implementations for curing of asymmetric structures. The 

advantages of a directional conveyor include the ability to shuttle a part quickly across the beam 

multiple times to apply doses rapidly in incremental amounts. The model for EB curing assumes 

a pass-through processing conveyor, where the component receives a given dose for each pass 

around the conveyor track (nonshuttling). This method means that a single part will require 

Photos courtesy of Acsion Industries, Pinawa, MB, Canada. 

Micro-switches 

for conveyor 

direction
7

nearly identical processing times to multiple parts, where a train of components can be sent 

continuously through the beam. Therefore, in the models, costs for processing using EB are 

approximately constant up to the number of cars that reside in the processing conveyor. 

Once the EB and oven materials are cured, the composites are debulked from the curing tools 

and sent to a finishing stage. During finishing, excess material resulting from the vacuum 

infusion method is trimmed away from around the perimeter of the part. This trim is considered 

an industrial waste for both techniques as the resin is fully cured. The trimmed part is inspected, 

repaired (if necessary), and submitted to further cost-equivalent processing stages. For example, 

for a composite panel that will be joined with other manufactured specimens, holes are machined 

through the part at the finishing stage. The machined part is inspected and repaired as needed. 

Once inspected and approved, the part is considered a finished component and goes into the 

manufactured count. The time to perform trimming and machining was not a consideration for 

the model comparison as both materials were treated similarly, therefore not impacting cost 

variation to the processing. 

2.2 Assumptions 

The basic calculation for manufacturing cost involves a summation of all capital costs. The 

capital costs include labor, equipment, and materials costs. Once a net cost is established for a 

given manufacturing cycle (number or parts), the cost per unit is calculated to normalize all 

processing costs. A comparative plot of cost per unit as a function of manufactured units is a 

part of the cost analysis. 

A number of computational assumptions were required for each of the processing methods 

selected. Since the initial cost conditions will be carried into final product cost through a 

depreciation and maintenance contribution, the initial costs datum play a significant role in the 

cost per unit. For this study, an oven of reasonable size to cure the largest manufactured part is 

selected and cost averaged for the model. Blue M Company* provided the oven costs (6). The 

oven specifications include a 60-kW oven with a chamber dimension of 12 H 12 H 6 ft with 10 

removable shelves. The addition of removable shelves allowed for increased batch sizes for 

smaller parts. It is demonstrated that batching of components can substantially lower net costs of 

manufacturing for oven-processed components. The effect of processing delays on performance 

of the composites is not considered a factor in the modeling developments. Oven batch sizes of 

1 (60 and 100 ft2

), 20 (24 ft2), and 80 (10 ft2) parts were used in the models. 

The EB processing is significantly more complex than the oven method. A consequence of the 

complexity of EB processing is worker safety, which requires substantial shielding of the 

processing zones in order to protect from stray radiation. Therefore, the work environment used 

to calculate costs includes both a processing unit and the required shielding. Additionally, a 

transport mechanism is required to move the fabricated parts through the EB process chamber. 

 *

 Blue M Company, 2121 Reach Rd., Williamsport, PA 17701. 
8

Each of these features contributes significantly to the final installed cost of an EB facility. Two 

cost functions are included for this analysis. One approach assumes an initial capital outlay to 

purchase an EB processing unit for the manufacturing facility. This approach gives direct 

manufacturing cost comparison to the oven processing approach described. A second approach 

is based on the recognition that resource time for an EB unit in this facility is severely 

underutilized. Consequently, a calculation is made assuming that existing EB facilities are used 

to cure the composite structures. This second case then incorporates expected additional costs 

associated with transport of the resin impregnated and cured composites to and from the 

manufacturing floor from the EB contract facility. Costs for transport are acquired from CF 

Motor Freight* (7). 

The purchased EB gun and electronics is a 150-kW H 10-MeV unit. The high-energy electrons 

allow a uniform dose to be applied from one side of the 0.75-in-thick composites as shown in 

Figure 4. The penetration is dependent upon structural density. The case for 1 g/cm3

 is shown in 

the figure. The cost of such a high energy unit is not substantially greater than for a 5-MeV 

system, as the total costs of acquisition include shielding and vault design, which are 50% of the 

total purchase cost. The vault is typically constructed either using an earthen berm, or more 

commonly, lead impregnated concrete walls. The particular configuration must be capable of 

housing a composite structure of 100 ft2

 on a continuous cycle. The costs of construction for an 

EB facility were provided from average facility costs calculated by IBA† (8). 

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

PENETRATION DEPTH (CM)

DOSE (%)

2.5 MeV

3.0 MeV

4.5 MeV

10 MeV

Figure 4. EB penetration depth (in water) for selected commercial beam energies. 

 *

 CF Motor Freight, 3663 Benson Ave., Baltimore, MD 21227. 

†

 IBA, 303 Horn Dr., Swedesboro, NJ 08085. 
9

In order to keep costs comparative, a similar EB configuration was used to generate toll-based 

costs for EB processing. A 150-kW and 10-MeV EB was assumed and the costs of transport 

were included assuming a contract with the toll facility of E-Beam Services, Inc.* The vault 

developed for the EB Services, Inc. facility is the largest available in the industry in the USA. 

The facility permits a 10- H 10-ft part continuous entrance and exit with good production 

efficiency. The transport carts are 52 H 100 in, which provides ~60%–70% utilization of the 

beam spread depending on part size. EB parts were also batched in the processing model to 

obtain maximum efficiency when the beam is on. Batch sizes of 40 (10 ft2), 20 (24 ft2), and 10 

(60 and 100 ft2) were used. 

2.3 Cost of Curing 

With the selected equipment, the total costs for ownership-based operation of the equipment are 

figured based on two calculations. The first calculation is the real-time use fact, which is based on 

the average electric consumption for the operations. To establish baseline costs for electric use, a 

cost figure of $0.064/kWhr was assumed, based on electric costs from the University of Delaware.†

 

This number is approximately equivalent to the national average for electric costs per kilowatt-hour. 

A computation of costs of operation per cure cycle could then be determined from the power rating 

of the equipment and the time required to achieve full cure. The second calculation used in the 

model is a depreciation and maintenance factor. These numbers are acquired from the commercial 

entities supplying the equipments and include average useful life of the equipment and annual 

maintenance issues associated with the equipment. 

For toll-based processing using EB, the facilities owners assume costs for electricity and 

maintenance. Therefore, a toll-based charge is assumed based on time required for curing of the 

composite parts. However, with toll-based processing, the additional costs of transportation are 

added to the formula. Freight charges are calculated based on class of material being shipped, weight 

of products shipped, and locations of the shipping and receiving facilities. A significant cost break is 

achieved with loads exceeding 100,000 lb. The charges used in the model are for shipping from the 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD to the EB Services, Inc. facilities 

in Cranbury, NJ. A toll charge to apply a 20-Mrad dose requires ~50 min to achieve at a nominal 

rate of $750 for 10- and 24-ft2

 parts. The time to cure increases with part size and complexity, as the 

beam spread is adjusted to meet the width requirements. Widening the beam has an effect of 

decreasing dose rate, causing longer cure cycles. Therefore, for each beam parameter change, EB 

Services, Inc. provided approximate cure times and costs. Processing costs were $825 (61 min) for 

60 ft2

 and $1650 (122 min) for 100 ft2. It should be mentioned that the ability to cure 100-ft2 parts is 

limited for a single horn configuration. Therefore, in the model, we assume the ability to cure onehalf of the part and rotate the position under the scan horn and cure the additional half of the part. 

The need for the additional passes greatly increases the time required to cure the large parts.

 *

 E-Beam Services, Inc., 118 Melrich Rd., Cranbury, NJ 08512. 

†

 University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716. 
10

The final calculation included in the model is relevant only to the thermal cured system. Due to 

the nature of VARTM resins in general, a compliance cost was assumed to address emissions 

costs from liquid molding in the composite panels. Should a vinyl ester-type resin be selected 

for the thermal processing, emissions of styrene will potentially add to the total costs of 

production. Therefore, a compliance cost is calculated based on output volume and using the 

MACT 2004 tax base of $0.24/lb of composites (9). The results show that this effect would be 

minimal for processing under VARTM conditions. 

Table 1 summarizes the fixed cost figures used in the models to generate comparative data 

between EB-ownership, EB-toll, and oven processing of flat plate composites of various sizes. 

Table 1. Fixed cost data used to generate cost comparisons in EB vs. oven-cured VARTM composite panels. 

Costs/Charges EB Toll EB Ownership Oven Ownership 

Electric None $0.064/kWhr $0.064/kWhr 

Resin $10/lb $10/lb $1.60/lb bulk 

$3.10/lb catalyst 

$3.71/lb accelerator 

$3.95/lb inhibitor 

Fabric $6.30/lb $6.30/lb $6.30/lb 

Labor – skilled $70/hr $70/hr $70/hr 

Labor – unskilled $60/hr $60/hr $60/hr 

Labor – supervisor $70/hr $70/hr $70/hr 

MACT None None $0.24/lb composite 

Depreciation/maintenance None 10 years at $300K/year 10 years at $5700/year 

Purchasing None $3 M $57K 

Toll ~$800/hr None None 

Process shipping 

 <100k lb 

 >100k lb 

$0.16–2.08/lb 

$0.14–0.16/lb 

None None 

2.4 Simulations Results 

The variations of model systems that were investigated are described in Table 2. The basic 

context of the models was discussed previously. The results of various parameter variations 

from the proposed experiments will be discussed here. The model studies will be referred to 

frequently by either the process method or by the model number identification shown in the table 

as part of the discussion. 

Table 2. Model simulation systems and processing parameters. 

Model No. Resin System Curing Method 

1 Vinyl ester or epoxy Oven-cured, 2-hour staging at 140 °F followed by 3-hr 

cure at 250 °F. 

2 Cationic cured epoxy 

or methacrylate 

EB cured, toll-based processing adding 20 Mrad over 

entire surface area. Includes shipping costs. 

3 Cationic cured epoxy 

or methacrylate 

EB cured, ownership-based processing adding 20 Mrad 

over entire surface area. 
11

Figure 5 shows the processing costs per square foot of 0.75-in composites manufactured for EB 

processing for ownership of the EB facility as a function of total production volume. A few key 

items are easily discerned. First, initial costs in manufacturing the first part are higher per unit 

for the first 10 parts. However, after 10 parts are processed, production costs level off to a 

constant per unit cost. Second, the cost per square foot is lower for larger composite panels, but 

average costs level off toward larger parts (>60 ft2). The leveling point is related to the balance 

between batch size and resource availability for processing of parts of this size. Lastly, the time 

variation between the cost of the first unit produced and the second unit produced is smaller for 

increased part dimensions. 

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

1 10 100 1000 10000

Volume (parts)

cost ($ / sq ft)

10 sq ft

24 sq ft

60 sq ft

100 sq ft

Figure 5. Production costs per square foot for EB ownership processing of flat panel 

composites (model 3). 

Toll-based EB processing has long been believed to be an excellent entry level processing 

approach for composite structures. In order to validate the processing value of EB toll vs. 

ownership, the net cost of producing the same composite parts is determined for a non-ownership 

case. Figure 6 shows the cost per square foot for the same composite structures processed using 

a facility toll EB source. One clear trend is the high cost of processing for just a single unit. 

Although performing one- and two-part layups is not a manufacturing cycle, these costs 

accurately reflect the cost of performing repair of a composite panel as well. Consequently, the 

evidence for using toll-based processing for repair is also demonstrated in the present model. 

Again, costs level out for larger production runs. For this special case, however, the costs level 

out at higher production numbers for the smaller parts, reflecting the advantage of fee-based 

processing. Since the cost per hour is constant, cycling multiple parts under the EB scan-horn to 

apply doses continuously across many parts reduces the net cost per part until the beam usage is 

maximized. 
12

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

1 10 100 1000 10000

Volume (parts)

cost ($ / sq ft)

10 sq ft

24 sq ft

60 sq ft

100 sq ft

Figure 6. EB processing of toll-based cure method for composite panels. 

The final comparative case is for oven-based processing. Due to the low-cost nature of the oven, 

only an ownership case is considered. The processing cost per square foot using an oven for the 

same panels is demonstrated in Figure 7. Immediately evident is the lower cost associated with 

low-volume production. Additionally, the advantages of batch curing are evident for process 

runs including more than 10 production units. A key technical barrier that is not captured by this 

study, however, is the effect of generating parts larger than the oven capacity. Unlike EB, which 

can be varied to achieve cure in large structures, the oven dimensions are fixed. Once the scale 

of parts exceeds the oven dimension, additional capital costs will be required. Consequently, the 

decreasing cost per square foot with size has reached a minimum in the case of 100-ft2

 parts for our 

selected oven. To prepare a 1000-ft2

 part, the model will require adjustments and additional capital 

depreciation and maintenance costs that will increase the average costs substantially. Again, 

however, it is apparent that increasing the volume beyond 1000 parts will not decrease costs per 

unit significantly unless additional resources are added. 

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

1 10 100 1000 10000

Volume (parts)

cost ($ / sq ft)

10 sq ft

24 sq ft

60 sq ft

100 sq ft

Figure 7. Production costs per square foot of composite panels for thermally cured 

systems in an oven. 
13

The current cost model does not consider costs of tooling variations between EB cured and 

thermal cured composite structures. Due to tolerance issues in the manufacturing process, 

tooling costs can reach millions of dollars per unit for thermal cured composites as metallic tools 

are often created with defined coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE) that closely mimic 

composite cure shrinkages. The advantage of these high-cost tools is in generating extremely 

tight tolerances in the fabrication of composite structures. However, for VARTM processing, 

this level of tooling cost is eliminated, as the VARTM processing is inherently less precise. The 

cost of autoclave curing could also be investigated, but without introducing additional tooling 

costs, or impacts of size limitations on the autoclave purchasing costs, the results would show a 

similar trend. 

3. Conclusions 

Some key conclusions that result from this modeling evaluation are the impact of capital costs on 

net processing costs and the minimal impact that compliance charges would have on final 

product cost, given the current regulations and tax rates. The impact of MACT on the small 

manufacturer is likely to be more substantial than on military providers, due in part to volume 

differences. However, as the military adds additional low-cost composite materials to the fielded 

platform portfolio, additional production suppliers will be essential to meet the increased demand 

(volume), and commodity composite fabricators will be strongly impacted in supplying military 

equipment. Additionally, the Army currently is developing a composite replacement parts 

program entitled “Composite Body Parts,” where sheet metal components with high corrosion 

replacement rates will be re-engineered using low-cost composite alternatives. Currently the 

program is in developmental funding. The components developed in the program will provide 

extensive insertion of composite media to the Army legacy infrastructure. 

Although, EB processing has the potential to produce a higher number of total parts, the lack of 

high-volume applications for large composite products in the military will cause the need for 

instantaneous throughput to be a minimal cost benefit for the producer. The EB processing unit 

is utilized at only about 5% of capacity in the model demonstrated, while other composite 

fabrication items are used to their full potential. Therefore, the processing bottleneck occurs in 

layup rather than cure process resources. Coupled with the shorter curing times and decreased 

energy consumption, the impact of a high-volume EB processing unit is a greater turn-over rate, 

and faster time to market for a given structure. However, the cost benefit of rapid production 

rates is not realized in full due to limited production volumes outlined in the process model. 

Additionally, the stability of EB resins and long shelf life provide a substantial reduction 

potential for hazardous wastes. The oven-processed resin is extremely time-sensitive once the 

raw materials are blended, causing a high potential for excess wastes in the infusion process. 

The value of stability to achieving optimum fill volumes and highly reproducible components is 
14

also not captured in the process models as described. Consequently, the worst-case scenario for 

EB processing has been explored, and under a worst-case comparison, EB processing will be 

significantly more costly due to high initial capital and high resin costs, compared to current 

thermal processing methods. Environmental controls and regulations alone are not significant 

enough to convince commercial industry to recapitalize equipment and change processes for 

current process methods. 

Again, a key advantage to new EB processing technology is a reduction in compliance restraints 

on a commercial enterprise. The EB resins are among the few viable resin formulations that 

effectively meet highly restrictive California emissions requirements (10). There are no VOCs 

emitted due to the 100% solids content of resins used for EB cure applications. The 

environmental value of non-emitting resin systems will continue to be a value added benefit for 

future composite developers, even though current technical performance metrics do not warrant 

changing current processing methods. Commercial industry should keep pursuing new cure 

technologies for composite applications in new product venues, in order to maximize 

environmental responsibility and provide optimum value for the composites customer. 

Two bases effectively drive the higher costs of EB processing: resin cost and equipment cost. In 

the case of ownership for EB vs. oven, the EB equipment costs 50 times more than a typical 

oven. However, the oven resource is utilized at ~60% of availability, while the EB unit operates 

at only 5% of capacity. Although the usage rates vary significantly, the model did not account 

for the increased service life of the EB unit. Effectively, the processing costs for EB could be 

reduced by a factor of 12 for a direct comparison with oven. However, the authors believed that 

extending EB service life into 100 years was unrealistic and would not effectively capture cost 

trends. Therefore, the highest reasonable capital cost depreciation and maintenance was applied, 

which elevated the EB processing costs. Second, the resins available for EB are not in high 

demand. The lack of commercial competition for manufacturing of EB resins additionally 

caused resin costs to be high. Without the implementation of commercial enterprise to drive 

costs down, EB resins are assumed to remain at a premium price rate for some duration. A 

reasonable assessment of the resin costs should allow for reducing costs with increasing volumes 

of commercial product produced. This aspect of the market effect on material costs could also 

not be reliably implemented in the model system. A key finding from the model, however, 

demonstrated that even using a relatively high-cost thermal system, the average resin cost per 

square foot is four times as high for EB systems, due to the volume discounts available on 

thermal resins. Upon analysis of a 1-year processing cycle for EB or oven ownership, the total 

costs for materials are 72% of net operating cost for EB vs. only 61% for the thermal cured case. 

This difference is difficult to overcome when total compliance costs account for only 

~1.25%–1.5% of final part costs. The initial resin costs cannot be recovered without the 

incorporation of tooling based costs in the models. Unfortunately, EB and oven comparisons for 

VARTM processing will inevitably demonstrate lower production costs for the oven-processed 

case as a result. 
15

In summary, the model analysis shows clearly that under current developmental status of EB for 

composite applications, the effective cost of production for composite structures will be 

somewhat higher using EB. 

EB processing is still a very cost effective processing technology for certain niche market 

applications. For instance, composite designs where net shape parts are essential would benefit 

greatly from the advanced resin designs afforded through EB processing. Additionally, 

composite structures composed of dissimilar materials or asymmetric interfaces could be created 

and cured using EB, producing novel structures that are not achievable using thermal methods. 

The aforementioned analysis also demonstrates a cost comparison with the lowest cost basis of 

processing currently available, i.e., low-cost resins with low-cost VARTM infusion. To apply 

EB technology to more advanced processing techniques such as prepreg or RTM layup methods 

would further improve the cost factors in favor of EB methods. However, for the current 

analysis, thermal processing methods still appear to be a preferred method of achieving low-cost 

processing of thick-section composite structures through VARTM of flat panel materials. 

Additional developments in the niche market environment for EB processing are currently 

underway, where an emphasis on environmental stability and low-shrinkage with lowtemperature processing can be essential to achieving complex geometries with exceptional 

tolerances. The future of EB is indeed bright, despite cost challenges uncovered under this 

model evaluation.
16

4. References 

1. Hosur, M. V.; Vaidya, U. K.; Jeelani, S.; Jones, S.; Eduljee, R.; Gillespie, J., Jr. Activity 

Based Cost Modeling of Liquid Molding Processing Techniques for Thick Section 

Composites. In Proceedings of American Society for Composites 14th Technical 

Conference, Dayton, OH, Sept 27–29, 1999; pp 968–977. 

2. Guidance on Clean Air Act Title III Regulations: National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 63.463,

Title 40, 2001. 

3. Wilenski, M. Non-Autoclave Materials for Large Composite Structures; Progress Report to 

Air Force for Contract No. F33615-99-C-5019; Nov 16, 2000. 

4. Carstensen, T.; Rogg, C.; Wilenski, M.; Aiken, R. Electron Beam Curing of Secondary 

Structural Aircraft Components. Presented at the SAMPE 2002 Symposium and Exhibition, 

Long Beach, CA, May 12–15, 2002; Closed Paper. 

5. Wilenski, M.; Baker, C. Process Development of E-Beam Curing for Large Structures. 

Presented at the SAMPE 2002 Symposium and Exhibition, Long Beach, CA, 

May 12–15, 2002. 

6. Savage, K. Blue M Company, Williamsport, PA. Private communication with 

Bernard Hart, April 2002. 

7. Sales Associate. CF Motor Freight, Baltimore, MD. Private communication with Bernard 

Hart, May 2002. 

8. Cheng, S.; Kerluke, D. IBA, Swedesboro, NJ. Private communication with James Sands at 

SAMPE 2002 Symposium and Exhibition, Long Beach, CA, May 14, 2002. 

9. Schweitzer, J. The Cost of Control. Composites Fabrication, June 2001, pp 10–43. 

10. Polyester Resin Operations; AQMD Rule 1162; South Coast Air Quality Management 

District: Diamond Bar, CA, amended May 13, 1994.
17

Report Documentation Page Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, 

including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson 

Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to 

comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

April 2003 

2. REPORT TYPE 

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

March 2001 – December 2002 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Cost Comparisons of Oven and Electron-Beam Processing Using Activity-Based 

Modeling 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

622618.H80 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Bernard F. Hart and James M. Sands 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

ATTN: AMSRL-WM-MB 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5069 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER 

ARL-TR-2961 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 

Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program 

901 North Stuart Street, Suite 303 

Arlington, VA 22203 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT 

 NUMBER(S) 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

14. ABSTRACT 

A limiting feature of electron beam (EB) processing for traditional composite applications is the high cost of processing 

equipment compared to an oven for elevated cure processing. A model system was developed in SIMPROCESS to compare the 

net manufacturing costs associated with fabrication of flat-panel glass composite plates using vacuum assisted resin transfer 

molding in combination with thermal oven curing or EB curing to process composite thermosets. SIMPROCESS integrates 

process mapping, hierarchical event-driven simulation, and activity-based costing into a single tool and allows accurate 

computation of industrial costs to be determined under various imposed constraints and economic conditions. In the model 

evaluation, a determination is made that demonstrates the impact of resin cost on total manufacturing costs for the various 

components and demonstrates how various scenarios from ownership to toll processing can be implemented by a manufacturer 

to keep total processing costs from EB curing relatively competitive with oven curing processes. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

electron beam, thermal curing, cost savings analysis, VARTM 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Bernard F. Hart 

a. REPORT 

UNCLASSIFIED 

b. ABSTRACT 

UNCLASSIFIED

c. THIS PAGE 

UNCLASSIFIED

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

24 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

410-306-0727 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
18

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

1

 2 DEFENSE TECHNICAL 

 INFORMATION CENTER 

 DTIC OCA 

 8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD 

 STE 0944 

 FT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 

 1 COMMANDING GENERAL 

 US ARMY MATERIEL CMD 

 AMCRDA TF 

 5001 EISENHOWER AVE 

 ALEXANDRIA VA 22333-0001 

 1 INST FOR ADVNCD TCHNLGY 

 THE UNIV OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 

 3925 W BRAKER LN STE 400 

 AUSTIN TX 78759-5316 

 1 US MILITARY ACADEMY 

 MATH SCI CTR EXCELLENCE 

 MADN MATH 

 THAYER HALL 

 WEST POINT NY 10996-1786 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRL D 

 DR D SMITH 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRL CS IS R 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 3 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRL CI OK TL 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 3 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRL CS IS T 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 2 DIR USARL 

 AMSRL CI LP (BLDG 305) 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

2

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRL CP CA 

 D SNIDER 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRL CI IS R 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 3 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRL OP SD TL 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRL SS SD 

 H WALLACE 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 2 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRL SS SE DS 

 R REYZER 

 R ATKINSON 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRL WM MB 

 A FRYDMAN 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY MATERIEL CMD 

 AMXMI INT 

 5001 EISENHOWER AVE 

 ALEXANDRIA VA 22333-0001 

 3 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR CC 

 M PADGETT 

 J HEDDERICH 

 H OPAT 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 2 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR AE WW 

 E BAKER 

 J PEARSON 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR FSE 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR TD 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 13 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR CCH A 

 F ALTAMURA 

 M NICOLICH 

 M PALATHINGUL 

 D VO 

 R HOWELL 

 A VELLA 

 M YOUNG 

 L MANOLE 

 S MUSALLI 

 R CARR 

 M LUCIANO 

 E LOGSDEN 

 T LOUZEIRO 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

3

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR CCH P 

 J LUTZ 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR FSF T 

 C LIVECCHIA 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA ASF 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR QAC T C 

 J PAGE 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR M 

 D DEMELLA 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 3 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR FSA 

 A WARNASH 

 B MACHAK 

 M CHIEFA 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 2 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR FSP G 

 M SCHIKSNIS 

 D CARLUCCI 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 2 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR CCH C 

 H CHANIN 

 S CHICO 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR QAC T 

 D RIGOGLIOSO 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR WET 

 T SACHAR 

 BLDG 172 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 US ARMY ARDEC 

 INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST 

 AMSTA AR WEL F 

 M GUERRIERE 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 10 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR CCH B 

 P DONADIA 

 F DONLON 

 P VALENTI 

 C KNUTSON 

 G EUSTICE 

 K HENRY 

 J MCNABOC 

 G WAGNECZ 

 R SAYER 

 F CHANG 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

4

 6 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR CCL 

 F PUZYCKI 

 R MCHUGH 

 D CONWAY 

 E JAROSZEWSKI 

 R SCHLENNER 

 M CLUNE 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 PM ARMS 

 SFAE GCSS ARMS 

 BLDG 171 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR WEA 

 J BRESCIA 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 PM MAS 

 SFAE AMO MAS 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 PM MAS 

 SFAE AMO MAS 

 CHIEF ENGINEER 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 PM MAS 

 SFAE AMO MAS PS 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 2 PM MAS 

 SFAE AMO MAS LC 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 2 PM MAS 

 SFAE AMO MAS MC 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 PRODUCTION BASE 

 MODERN ACTY 

 AMSMC PBM K 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY TACOM 

 PM ABRAMS 

 SFAE ASM AB 

 6501 ELEVEN MILE RD 

 WARREN MI 48397-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY TACOM 

 AMSTA SF 

 WARREN MI 48397-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY TACOM 

 PM BFVS 

 SFAE GCSS W BV 

 6501 ELEVEN MILE RD 

 WARREN MI 48397-5000 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 AIR FORCE RESEARCH LAB 

 MLLMD 

 D MIRACLE 

 2230 TENTH ST 

 WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB OH 

 45433-7817 

 1 OFC OF NAVAL RESEARCH 

 J CHRISTODOULOU 

 ONR CODE 332 

 800 N QUINCY ST 

 ARLINGTON VA 22217-5600 

 1 US ARMY CERL 

 R LAMPO 

 2902 NEWMARK DR 

 CHAMPAIGN IL 61822 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY TACOM 

 PM SURVIVABLE SYSTEMS 

 SFAE GCSS W GSI H 

 M RYZYI 

 6501 ELEVEN MILE RD 

 WARREN MI 48397-5000 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

5

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY TACOM 

 CHIEF ABRAMS TESTING 

 SFAE GCSS W AB QT 

 T KRASKIEWICZ 

 6501 ELEVEN MILE RD 

 WARREN MI 48397-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 WATERVLIET ARSENAL 

 SMCWV QAE Q 

 B VANINA 

 BLDG 44 

 WATERVLIET NY 12189-4050 

 1 TNG, DOC, & CBT DEV 

 ATZK TDD IRSA 

 A POMEY 

 FT KNOX KY 40121 

 2 HQ IOC TANK 

 AMMUNITION TEAM 

 AMSIO SMT 

 R CRAWFORD 

 W HARRIS 

 ROCK ISLAND IL 61299-6000 

 2 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY AMCOM 

 AVIATION APPLIED TECH DIR 

 J SCHUCK 

 FT EUSTIS VA 23604-5577 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY AMCOM 

 SFAE AV RAM TV 

 D CALDWELL 

 BLDG 5300 

 REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 

 35898 

 1 NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CTR 

 DAHLGREN DIV CODE G06 

 DAHLGREN VA 22448 

 14 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY TACOM 

 AMSTA TR R 

 R MCCLELLAND 

 D THOMAS 

 J BENNETT 

 D HANSEN 

 AMSTA JSK 

 S GOODMAN 

 J FLORENCE 

 K IYER 

 D TEMPLETON 

 A SCHUMACHER 

 AMSTA TR D 

 D OSTBERG 

 L HINOJOSA 

 B RAJU 

 AMSTA CS SF 

 H HUTCHINSON 

 F SCHWARZ 

 WARREN MI 48397-5000 

 14 BENET LABORATORIES 

 AMSTA AR CCB 

 R FISCELLA 

 M SOJA 

 E KATHE 

 M SCAVULO 

 G SPENCER 

 P WHEELER 

 S KRUPSKI 

 J VASILAKIS 

 G FRIAR 

 R HASENBEIN 

 AMSTA CCB R 

 S SOPOK 

 E HYLAND 

 D CRAYON 

 R DILLON 

 WATERVLIET NY 12189-4050 

 2 US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

 CERD C 

 T LIU 

 CEW ET 

 T TAN 

 20 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW 

 WASHINGTON DC 20314 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

6

 1 US ARMY COLD REGIONS 

 RSCH & ENGRNG LAB 

 P DUTTA 

 72 LYME RD 

 HANOVER NH 03755 

 1 USA SBCCOM PM SOLDIER SPT 

 AMSSB PM RSS A 

 J CONNORS 

 KANSAS ST 

 NATICK MA 01760-5057 

 2 USA SBCCOM 

 MATERIAL SCIENCE TEAM 

 AMSSB RSS 

 J HERBERT 

 M SENNETT 

 KANSAS ST 

 NATICK MA 01760-5057 

 2 OFC OF NAVAL RESEARCH 

 D SIEGEL CODE 351 

 J KELLY 

 800 N QUINCY ST 

 ARLINGTON VA 22217-5660 

 1 NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CTR 

 TECH LIBRARY CODE 323 

 17320 DAHLGREN RD 

 DAHLGREN VA 22448 

 1 NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CTR 

 CRANE DIVISION 

 M JOHNSON CODE 20H4 

 LOUISVILLE KY 40214-5245 

 2 NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CTR 

 U SORATHIA 

 C WILLIAMS CD 6551 

 9500 MACARTHUR BLVD 

 WEST BETHESDA MD 20817 

 2 COMMANDER 

 NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CTR 

 CARDEROCK DIVISION 

 R PETERSON CODE 2020 

 M CRITCHFIELD CODE 1730 

 BETHESDA MD 20084 

 8 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY NATIONAL GROUND 

 INTELLIGENCE CTR 

 D LEITER MS 404 

 M HOLTUS MS 301 

 M WOLFE MS 307 

 S MINGLEDORF MS 504 

 J GASTON MS 301 

 W GSTATTENBAUER MS 304 

 R WARNER MS 305 

 J CRIDER MS 306 

 2055 BOULDERS RD 

 CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22911-8318 

 1 NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS CMD 

 D LIESE 

 1333 ISAAC HULL AVE SE 1100 

 WASHINGTON DC 20376-1100 

 1 NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CTR 

 M LACY CODE B02 

 17320 DAHLGREN RD 

 DAHLGREN VA 22448 

 1 EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE 

 DIV N85 

 F SHOUP 

 2000 NAVY PENTAGON 

 WASHINGTON DC 20350-2000 

 8 US ARMY SBCCOM 

 SOLDIER SYSTEMS CENTER 

 BALLISTICS TEAM 

 J WARD 

 W ZUKAS 

 P CUNNIFF 

 J SONG 

 MARINE CORPS TEAM 

 J MACKIEWICZ 

 BUS AREA ADVOCACY TEAM 

 W HASKELL 

 AMSSB RCP SS 

 W NYKVIST 

 S BEAUDOIN 

 KANSAS ST 

 NATICK MA 01760-5019 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

7

 7 US ARMY RESEARCH OFC 

 A CROWSON 

 H EVERETT 

 J PRATER 

 G ANDERSON 

 D STEPP 

 D KISEROW 

 J CHANG 

 PO BOX 12211 

 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK NC 

 27709-2211 

 1 AFRL MLBC 

 2941 P ST RM 136 

 WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB OH 

 45433-7750 

 8 NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CTR 

 J FRANCIS CODE G30 

 D WILSON CODE G32 

 R D COOPER CODE G32 

 J FRAYSSE CODE G33 

 E ROWE CODE G33 

 T DURAN CODE G33 

 L DE SIMONE CODE G33 

 R HUBBARD CODE G33 

 DAHLGREN VA 22448 

 1 NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CTR 

 CARDEROCK DIVISION 

 R CRANE CODE 2802 

 3A LEGGETT CIR 

 BETHESDA MD 20054-5000 

 1 AFRL MLSS 

 R THOMSON 

 2179 12TH ST RM 122 

 WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB OH 

 45433-7718 

 2 AFRL 

 F ABRAMS 

 J BROWN 

 BLDG 653 

 2977 P ST STE 6 

 WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB OH 

 45433-7739 

 5 DIRECTOR 

 LLNL 

 R CHRISTENSEN 

 S DETERESA 

 F MAGNESS 

 M FINGER MS 313 

 M MURPHY L 282 

 PO BOX 808 

 LIVERMORE CA 94550 

 1 AFRL MLS OL 

 L COULTER 

 5851 F AVE 

 BLDG 849 RM AD1A 

 HILL AFB UT 84056-5713 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LAB 

 F L ADDESSIO T 3 MS 5000 

 PO BOX 1633 

 LOS ALAMOS NM 87545 

 1 OSD 

 JOINT CCD TEST FORCE 

 OSD JCCD 

 R WILLIAMS 

 3909 HALLS FERRY RD 

 VICKSBURG MS 29180-6199 

 3 DARPA 

 M VANFOSSEN 

 S WAX 

 L CHRISTODOULOU 

 3701 N FAIRFAX DR 

 ARLINGTON VA 22203-1714 

 2 SERDP PROGRAM OFC 

 PM P2 

 C PELLERIN 

 B SMITH 

 901 N STUART ST STE 303 

 ARLINGTON VA 22203 

 1 OAK RIDGE NATIONAL 

 LABORATORY 

 R M DAVIS 

 PO BOX 2008 

 OAK RIDGE TN 37831-6195 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

8

 1 OAK RIDGE NATIONAL 

 LABORATORY 

 C EBERLE MS 8048 

 PO BOX 2008 

 OAK RIDGE TN 37831 

 3 DIRECTOR 

 SANDIA NATIONAL LABS 

 APPLIED MECHANICS DEPT 

 MS 9042 

 J HANDROCK 

 Y R KAN 

 J LAUFFER 

 PO BOX 969 

 LIVERMORE CA 94551-0969 

 1 OAK RIDGE NATIONAL 

 LABORATORY 

 C D WARREN MS 8039 

 PO BOX 2008 

 OAK RIDGE TN 37831 

 3 NIST 

 J CHIN MS 8621 

 J MARTIN MS 8621 

 D DUTHINH MS 8611 

 100 BUREAU DR 

 GAITHERSBURG MD 20899 

 3 HYDROGEOLOGIC INC 

 SERDP ESTCP SPT OFC 

 S WALSH 

 1155 HERNDON PKWY STE 900 

 HERNDON VA 20170 

 3 NASA LANGLEY RSCH CTR 

 AMSRL VS 

 W ELBER MS 266 

 F BARTLETT JR MS 266 

 G FARLEY MS 266 

 HAMPTON VA 23681-0001 

 1 NASA LANGLEY RSCH CTR 

 T GATES MS 188E 

 HAMPTON VA 23661-3400 

 1 FHWA 

 E MUNLEY 

 6300 GEORGETOWN PIKE 

 MCLEAN VA 22101 

 1 USDOT FEDERAL RAILRD 

 M FATEH RDV 31 

 WASHINGTON DC 20590 

 3 CYTEC FIBERITE 

 R DUNNE 

 D KOHLI 

 R MAYHEW 

 1300 REVOLUTION ST 

 HAVRE DE GRACE MD 21078 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 NATIONAL GRND INTLLGNC CTR 

 IANG TMT 

 2055 BOULDERS RD 

 CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 

 22911-8318 

 1 SIOUX MFG 

 B KRIEL 

 PO BOX 400 

 FT TOTTEN ND 58335 

 2 3TEX CORPORATION 

 A BOGDANOVICH 

 J SINGLETARY 

 109 MACKENAN DR 

 CARY NC 27511 

 1 3M CORPORATION 

 J SKILDUM 

 3M CENTER BLDG 60 IN 01 

 ST PAUL MN 55144-1000 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 DEFENSE INTLLGNC AGNCY 

 TA 5 

 K CRELLING 

 WASHINGTON DC 20310 

 1 ADVANCED GLASS FIBER YARNS 

 T COLLINS 

 281 SPRING RUN LANE STE A 

 DOWNINGTON PA 19335 

 1 COMPOSITE MATERIALS INC 

 D SHORTT 

 19105 63 AVE NE 

 PO BOX 25 

 ARLINGTON WA 98223 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

9

 1 JPS GLASS 

 L CARTER 

 PO BOX 260 

 SLATER RD 

 SLATER SC 29683 

 1 COMPOSITE MATERIALS INC 

 R HOLLAND 

 11 JEWEL CT 

 ORINDA CA 94563 

 1 COMPOSITE MATERIALS INC 

 C RILEY 

 14530 S ANSON AVE 

 SANTA FE SPRINGS CA 90670 

 2 SIMULA 

 J COLTMAN 

 R HUYETT 

 10016 S 51ST ST 

 PHOENIX AZ 85044 

 2 PROTECTION MATERIALS INC 

 M MILLER 

 F CRILLEY 

 14000 NW 58 CT 

 MIAMI LAKES FL 33014 

 2 FOSTER MILLER 

 M ROYLANCE 

 W ZUKAS 

 195 BEAR HILL RD 

 WALTHAM MA 02354-1196 

 1 ROM DEVELOPMENT CORP 

 R O MEARA 

 136 SWINEBURNE ROW 

 BRICK MARKET PLACE 

 NEWPORT RI 02840 

 2 TEXTRON SYSTEMS 

 T FOLTZ 

 M TREASURE 

 1449 MIDDLESEX ST 

 LOWELL MA 01851 

 2 MILLIKEN RSCH CORP 

 H KUHN 

 M MACLEOD 

 PO BOX 1926 

 SPARTANBURG SC 29303 

 1 CONNEAUGHT INDUSTRIES INC 

 J SANTOS 

 PO BOX 1425 

 COVENTRY RI 02816 

 1 ARMTEC DEFENSE PRODUCTS 

 S DYER 

 85 901 AVE 53 

 PO BOX 848 

 COACHELLA CA 92236 

 3 PACIFIC NORTHWEST LAB 

 M SMITH 

 G VAN ARSDALE 

 R SHIPPELL 

 PO BOX 999 

 RICHLAND WA 99352 

 8 ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC 

 C CANDLAND MN11 2830 

 C AAKHUS MN11 2830 

 B SEE MN11 2439 

 N VLAHAKUS MN11 2145 

 R DOHRN MN11 2830 

 S HAGLUND MN11 2439 

 M HISSONG MN11 2830 

 D KAMDAR MN11 2830 

 600 SECOND ST NE 

 HOPKINS MN 55343-8367 

 1 APPLIED COMPOSITES 

 W GRISCH 

 333 NORTH SIXTH ST 

 ST CHARLES IL 60174 

 1 CUSTOM ANALYTICAL 

 ENG SYS INC 

 A ALEXANDER 

 13000 TENSOR LANE NE 

 FLINTSTONE MD 21530
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

10

 1 AAI CORPORATION 

 DR N B MCNELLIS 

 PO BOX 126 

 HUNT VALLEY MD 21030-0126 

 1 OFC DEPUTY UNDER SEC DEFNS 

 J THOMPSON 

 1745 JEFFERSON DAVIS HWY 

 CRYSTAL SQ 4 STE 501 

 ARLINGTON VA 22202 

 3 ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC 

 J CONDON 

 E LYNAM 

 J GERHARD 

 WV01 16 STATE RT 956 

 PO BOX 210 

 ROCKET CENTER WV 26726-0210 

 1 PROJECTILE TECHNOLOGY INC 

 515 GILES ST 

 HAVRE DE GRACE MD 21078 

 1 HEXCEL INC 

 R BOE 

 PO BOX 18748 

 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84118 

 5 AEROJET GEN CORP 

 D PILLASCH 

 T COULTER 

 C FLYNN 

 D RUBAREZUL 

 M GREINER 

 1100 WEST HOLLYVALE ST 

 AZUSA CA 91702-0296 

 1 BRIGS COMPANY 

 J BACKOFEN 

 2668 PETERBOROUGH ST 

 HERNDON VA 22071-2443 

 1 ZERNOW TECHNICAL SERVICES 

 L ZERNOW 

 425 W BONITA AVE STE 208 

 SAN DIMAS CA 91773 

 1 GENERAL DYNAMICS OTS 

 L WHITMORE 

 10101 NINTH ST NORTH 

 ST PETERSBURG FL 33702 

 2 GENERAL DYNAMICS OTS 

 FLINCHBAUGH DIV 

 K LINDE 

 T LYNCH 

 PO BOX 127 

 RED LION PA 17356 

 1 GKN WESTLAND AEROSPACE 

 D OLDS 

 450 MURDOCK AVE 

 MERIDEN CT 06450-8324 

 5 SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT 

 G JACARUSO 

 T CARSTENSEN 

 B KAY 

 S GARBO MS S330A 

 J ADELMANN 

 6900 MAIN ST 

 PO BOX 9729 

 STRATFORD CT 06497-9729 

 1 PRATT & WHITNEY 

 C WATSON 

 400 MAIN ST MS 114 37 

 EAST HARTFORD CT 06108 

 1 AEROSPACE CORP 

 G HAWKINS M4 945 

 2350 E EL SEGUNDO BLVD 

 EL SEGUNDO CA 90245 

 2 CYTEC FIBERITE 

 M LIN 

 W WEB 

 1440 N KRAEMER BLVD 

 ANAHEIM CA 92806 

 2 UDLP 

 G THOMAS 

 M MACLEAN 

 PO BOX 58123 

 SANTA CLARA CA 95052 

 1 UDLP WARREN OFC 

 A LEE 

 31201 CHICAGO RD SOUTH 

 SUITE B102 

 WARREN MI 48093
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

11

 2 UDLP 

 R BRYNSVOLD 

 P JANKE MS 170 

 4800 EAST RIVER RD 

 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55421-1498 

 2 BOEING ROTORCRAFT 

 P MINGURT 

 P HANDEL 

 800 B PUTNAM BLVD 

 WALLINGFORD PA 19086 

 1 LOCKHEED MARTIN 

 SKUNK WORKS 

 D FORTNEY 

 1011 LOCKHEED WAY 

 PALMDALE CA 93599-2502 

 1 LOCKHEED MARTIN 

 R FIELDS 

 5537 PGA BLVD 

 SUITE 4516 

 ORLANDO FL 32839 

 1 NORTHRUP GRUMMAN CORP 

 ELECTRONIC SENSORS 

 & SYSTEMS DIV 

 E SCHOCH MS V 16 

 1745A W NURSERY RD 

 LINTHICUM MD 21090 

 1 GDLS DIVISION 

 D BARTLE 

 PO BOX 1901 

 WARREN MI 48090 

 2 GDLS 

 D REES 

 M PASIK 

 PO BOX 2074 

 WARREN MI 48090-2074 

 1 GDLS 

 MUSKEGON OPERATIONS 

 M SOIMAR 

 76 GETTY ST 

 MUSKEGON MI 49442 

 1 GENERAL DYNAMICS 

 AMPHIBIOUS SYS 

 SURVIVABILITY LEAD 

 G WALKER 

 991 ANNAPOLIS WAY 

 WOODBRIDGE VA 22191 

 6 INST FOR ADVANCED 

 TECH 

 H FAIR 

 I MCNAB 

 P SULLIVAN 

 S BLESS 

 W REINECKE 

 C PERSAD 

 3925 W BRAKER LN STE 400 

 AUSTIN TX 78759-5316 

 1 ARROW TECH ASSO 

 1233 SHELBURNE RD STE D8 

 SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 

 05403-7700 

 1 UCLA MANE DEPT ENGR IV 

 H T HAHN 

 LOS ANGELES CA 90024-1597 

 2 UNIV OF DAYTON 

 RESEARCH INST 

 R Y KIM 

 A K ROY 

 300 COLLEGE PARK AVE 

 DAYTON OH 45469-0168 

 1 UMASS LOWELL 

 PLASTICS DEPT 

 N SCHOTT 

 1 UNIVERSITY AVE 

 LOWELL MA 01854 

 1 IIT RESEARCH CENTER 

 D ROSE 

 201 MILL ST 

 ROME NY 13440-6916 

 1 GA TECH RSCH INST 

 GA INST OF TCHNLGY 

 P FRIEDERICH 

 ATLANTA GA 30392
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

12

 1 MICHIGAN ST UNIV 

 MSM DEPT 

 R AVERILL 

 3515 EB 

 EAST LANSING MI 48824-1226 

 1 UNIV OF WYOMING 

 D ADAMS 

 PO BOX 3295 

 LARAMIE WY 82071 

 2 PENN STATE UNIV 

 R MCNITT 

 C BAKIS 

 212 EARTH ENGR 

 SCIENCES BLDG 

 UNIVERSITY PARK PA 16802 

 1 PENN STATE UNIV 

 R S ENGEL 

 245 HAMMOND BLDG 

 UNIVERSITY PARK PA 16801 

 1 PURDUE UNIV 

 SCHOOL OF AERO & ASTRO 

 C T SUN 

 W LAFAYETTE IN 47907-1282 

 1 STANFORD UNIV 

 DEPT OF AERONAUTICS 

 & AEROBALLISTICS 

 S TSAI 

 DURANT BLDG 

 STANFORD CA 94305 

 1 UNIV OF MAINE 

 ADV STR & COMP LAB 

 R LOPEZ ANIDO 

 5793 AEWC BLDG 

 ORONO ME 04469-5793 

 1 JOHNS HOPKINS UNIV 

 APPLIED PHYSICS LAB 

 P WIENHOLD 

 11100 JOHNS HOPKINS RD 

 LAUREL MD 20723-6099 

 1 UNIV OF DAYTON 

 J M WHITNEY 

 COLLEGE PARK AVE 

 DAYTON OH 45469-0240 

 1 NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV 

 CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPT 

 W RASDORF 

 PO BOX 7908 

 RALEIGH NC 27696-7908 

 5 UNIV OF DELAWARE 

 CTR FOR COMPOSITE MTRLS 

 J GILLESPIE 

 M SANTARE 

 S YARLAGADDA 

 S ADVANI 

 D HEIDER 

 201 SPENCER LABORATORY 

 NEWARK DE 19716 

 1 DEPT OF MATERIALS 

 SCIENCE & ENGINEERING 

 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 

 AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN 

 J ECONOMY 

 1304 WEST GREEN ST 115B 

 URBANA IL 61801 

 1 UNIV OF MARYLAND 

 DEPT OF AEROSPACE ENGNRNG 

 A J VIZZINI 

 COLLEGE PARK MD 20742 

 3 UNIV OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 

 CTR FOR ELECTROMECHANICS 

 J PRICE 

 A WALLS 

 J KITZMILLER 

 10100 BURNET RD 

 AUSTIN TX 78758-4497 

 3 VA POLYTECHNICAL 

 INST & STATE UNIV 

 DEPT OF ESM 

 M W HYER 

 K REIFSNIDER 

 R JONES 

 BLACKSBURG VA 24061-0219 

 1 SOUTHWEST RSCH INST 

 ENGR & MATL SCIENCES DIV 

 J RIEGEL 

 6220 CULEBRA RD 

 PO DRAWER 28510 

 SAN ANTONIO TX 78228-0510 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

13

1 BATELLE NATICK OPERATIONS 

 B HALPIN 

 313 SPEEN ST 

 NATICK MA 01760 

 1 UNIV OF TENNESSEE AT 

 KNOXVILLE 

 K KIT 

 434 DOUGHERTY ENGRNG BLDG 

 KNOXVILLE TN 37996-2200 

 2 UCB CHEMICALS CORP 

 M JOHNSON 

 S WILLIAMSON 

 2000 LAKE PARK DR 

 SMYRNA GA 30080 

 1 APPLIED POLERAMIC INC 

 R MOULTON 

 850 TEAL DR 

 BENICIA CA 94510-1249 

 2 SCIENCE RESEARCH LAB 

 C BYRNE 

 15 WARD ST 

 SOMERVILLE MA 02143 

 1 MICHIGAN STATE UNIV 

 COMPOSITES CTR 

 L DRZAL 

 2100 ENGINEERING BLDG 

 EAST LANSING MI 48824-1226 

 1 ORNL 

 C JANKE MS 2009 

 PO BOX 2008 BLDG 45002 

 OAK RIDGE TN 37831 

 1 ORNL 

 R DABESTANI MS 6100 

 PO BOX 2008 BLDG 45002 

 OAK RIDGE TN 37831 

 2 UNIV OF ALABAMA AT 

 BIRMINGHAM 

 U VAIDYA 

 C ULVEN 

 254 BUSINESS ENGNRG COMPLEX 

 1530 THIRD AVE S 

 BIRMINGHAM AL 35294-4461 

 2 DREXEL UNIVERSITY 

 G PALMESE 

 E J ROBINETTE 

 3141 CHESTNUT ST 

 PHILADELPHIA PA 19104 

 1 IBA 

 S CHENG 

 303 HERON DR 

 SWEDESBORO NJ 08085 

 1 COMANCHE PMO 

 USA AMCOM 

 SFAE AV RAH 

 D WILLIAMS 

 REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 

 35898-5000 

 1 NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORP 

 A YEN 

 ONE HORNET WAY 

 EL SEGUNDO CA 90245-2804 

 1 BOEING COMPANY 

 M WILENSKI 

 PO BOX 3999 

 MC73 09 

 SEATTLE WA 98124-2499 

 1 BOEING COMPANY 

 R G ALBERS 

 PO BOX 3707 

 MC 73 61 

 SEATTLE WA 98124-2499 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

14

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 1 US ARMY MATERIEL 

 SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY 

 P DIETZ 

 392 HOPKINS RD 

 AMXSY TD 

 APG MD 21005-5071 

 1 US ARMY ATC 

 W C FRAZER 

 CSTE DTC AT AC I 

 400 COLLERAN RD 

 APG MD 21005-5059 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRL OP AP L 

 APG MD 21005-5066 

 

 80 DIR USARL 

 AMSRL CI 

 AMSRL CI S 

 A MARK 

 AMSRL CS IO FI 

 M ADAMSON 

 AMSRL SL BA 

 AMSRL SL BL 

 D BELY 

 R HENRY 

 AMSRL SL BG 

 AMSRL SL I 

 AMSRL WM 

 J SMITH 

 D VIECHNICKI 

 J MCCAULEY 

 AMSRL WM B 

 A HORST 

 AMSRL WM BA 

 D LYON 

 AMSRL WM BC 

 P PLOSTINS 

 J NEWILL 

 S WILKERSON 

 A ZIELINSKI 

 AMSRL WM MA 

 L GHIORSE 

 S MCKNIGHT 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (CONT)

 AMSRL WM MB 

 B FINK 

 J BENDER 

 T BOGETTI 

 R BOSSOLI 

 L BURTON 

 S CORNELISON 

 P DEHMER 

 R DOOLEY 

 W DRYSDALE 

 G GAZONAS 

 S GHIORSE 

 D GRANVILLE 

 B HART 

 D HOPKINS 

 C HOPPEL 

 D HENRY 

 R KASTE 

 M KLUSEWITZ 

 M LEADORE 

 R LIEB 

 E RIGAS 

 J SANDS 

 D SPAGNUOLO 

 W SPURGEON 

 J TZENG 

 E WETZEL 

 AMRSL WM MC 

 J BEATTY 

 E CHIN 

 J MONTGOMERY 

 A WERECZCAK 

 J LASALVIA 

 AMSRL WM MD 

 W ROY 

 S WALSH 

 AMSRL WM T 

 B BURNS 

 M ZOLTOSKI 

 AMSRL WM TA 

 W GILLICH 

 T HAVEL 

 J RUNYEON 

 M BURKINS 

 E HORWATH 

 B GOOCH 

 W BRUCHEY 

 M NORMANDIA 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

15

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (CONT)

 AMRSL WM TB 

 P BAKER 

 AMSRL WM TC 

 R COATES 

 AMSRL WM TD 

 A DAS GUPTA 

 T HADUCH 

 M RAFTENBERG 

 M BOTELER 

 T WEERASOORIYA 

 D DANDEKAR 

 AMSRL WM TE 

 A NIILER 

 J POWELL 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

16

 1 LTD 

 R MARTIN 

 MERL 

 TAMWORTH RD 

 HERTFORD SG13 7DG 

 UK 

 1 SMC SCOTLAND 

 P W LAY 

 DERA ROSYTH 

 ROSYTH ROYAL DOCKYARD 

 DUNFERMLINE FIFE KY 11 2XR 

 UK 

 1 CIVIL AVIATION 

 ADMINSTRATION 

 T GOTTESMAN 

 PO BOX 8 

 BEN GURION INTERNL AIRPORT 

 LOD 70150 

 ISRAEL 

 1 AEROSPATIALE 

 S ANDRE 

 A BTE CC RTE MD132 

 316 ROUTE DE BAYONNE 

 TOULOUSE 31060 

 FRANCE 

 1 DRA FORT HALSTEAD 

 P N JONES 

 SEVEN OAKS KENT TN 147BP 

 UK 

 1 DEFENSE RESEARCH ESTAB 

 VALCARTIER 

 F LESAGE 

 COURCELETTE QUEBEC 

 COA IRO 

 CANADA 

 1 SWISS FEDERAL ARMAMENTS 

 WKS 

 W LANZ 

 ALLMENDSTRASSE 86 

 3602 THUN 

 SWITZERLAND 

 1 DYNAMEC RESEARCH AB 

 AKE PERSSON 

 BOX 201 

 SE 151 23 SODERTALJE 

 SWEDEN 

 1 ISRAEL INST OF 

 TECHNOLOGY 

 S BODNER 

 FACULTY OF MECHANICAL 

 ENGR 

 HAIFA 3200 

 ISRAEL 

 1 DSTO 

 WEAPONS SYSTEMS DIVISION 

 N BURMAN RLLWS 

 SALISBURY 

 SOUTH AUSTRALIA 5108 

 AUSTRALIA 

 1 DEF RES ESTABLISHMENT 

 VALCARTIER 

 A DUPUIS 

 2459 BOULEVARD PIE XI NORTH 

 VALCARTIER QUEBEC 

 CANADA 

 PO BOX 8800 COURCELETTE 

 GOA IRO QUEBEC 

 CANADA 

 1 INSTITUT FRANCO ALLEMAND 

 DE RECHERCHES DE SAINT 

 LOUIS 

 DE M GIRAUD 

 5 RUE DU GENERAL 

 CASSAGNOU 

 BOITE POSTALE 34 

 F 68301 SAINT LOUIS CEDEX 

 FRANCE 

 1 ECOLE POLYTECH 

 J MANSON 

 DMX LTC 

 CH 1015 LAUSANNE 

 SWITZERLAND
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

17

 1 TNO DEFENSE RESEARCH 

 R IJSSELSTEIN 

 ACCOUNT DIRECTOR 

 R&D ARMEE 

 PO BOX 6006 

 2600 JA DELFT 

 THE NETHERLANDS 

 2 FOA NATL DEFENSE RESEARCH 

 ESTAB 

 DIR DEPT OF WEAPONS & 

 PROTECTION 

 B JANZON 

 R HOLMLIN 

 S 172 90 STOCKHOLM 

 SWEDEN 

 2 DEFENSE TECH & PROC AGENCY 

 GROUND 

 I CREWTHER 

 GENERAL HERZOG HAUS 

 3602 THUN 

 SWITZERLAND 

 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 

 RAFAEL 

 ARMAMENT DEVELOPMENT 

 AUTH 

 M MAYSELESS 

 PO BOX 2250 

 HAIFA 31021 

 ISRAEL 

 1 TNO DEFENSE RESEARCH 

 I H PASMAN 

 POSTBUS 6006 

 2600 JA DELFT 

 THE NETHERLANDS 

 1 B HIRSCH 

 TACHKEMONY ST 6 

 NETAMUA 42611 

 ISRAEL 

 1 DEUTSCHE AEROSPACE AG 

 DYNAMICS SYSTEMS 

 M HELD 

 PO BOX 1340 

 D 86523 SCHROBENHAUSEN 

 GERMANY 

1 NATNL RESRCH CNCL CANADA 

 K COLE 

 BLDG M 3 

 75 MONTREAL RD 

 OTTAWA ON K1A OR6 

 CANADA