U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

29–782PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

COMPOSITE MATERIALS: 

STRENGTHENING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 18, 2018 

Serial No. 115–55 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

MARK TAKANO, California 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, LOUISIANA, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DONALD S. BEYER, Jr., Virginia 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

AMI BERA, California 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

April 18, 2018 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Daniel Webster, Subcommittee on Research and 

Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 5 

Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................... 6 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 62 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 63 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Joannie Chin, Deputy Director, Engineering Laboratory, NIST 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 11 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Dr. Hota V. GangaRao, Wadsworth Distinguished Professor, Statler College 

of Engineering, West Virginia University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 21 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

Dr. David Lange, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 27 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 29 

Mr. Shane E. Weyant, President and CEO, Creative Pultrusions, Inc. 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 39 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 41 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 58 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Joannie Chin, Deputy Director, Engineering Laboratory, NIST ................... 70 

Dr. Hota V. GangaRao, Wadsworth Distinguished Professor, Statler College 

of Engineering, West Virginia University .......................................................... 76 

Dr. David Lange, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. ..................................... 81 

Mr. Shane E. Weyant, President and CEO, Creative Pultrusions, Inc. .............. 82 

(1) 

COMPOSITE MATERIALS: 

STRENGTHENING INFRASTRUCTURE 

DEVELOPMENT 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Daniel Webster 

presiding. 
2 
3 
4 

Mr. WEBSTER. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time. 

Good morning. Everyone’s here. Welcome to today’s hearing entitled, ‘‘Composite Materials: Strengthening Infrastructure Development.’’ I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

The purpose of this morning’s hearing is to review a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report on overcoming 

barriers to the adoption of composites in sustainable infrastructure 

and discuss the value of developing composite standards for infrastructure applications. 

While not widely adopted yet, composites have been used in select construction projects across the country. As we will hear from 

our experts today, fiber-reinforced polymer composites produced in 

the United States offer durable, sustainable, and cost-effective solutions in a variety of infrastructure applications as diverse as dams, 

levees, highways, bridges, tunnels, railroads, harbors, utility poles 

and buildings. However, without proper design guidelines and data 

tables to harmonize standards and create a uniform guidance, the 

practical use of composites to build durable and cost-effective infrastructure will continue to lag. 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology is wellpoised to lead research to provide the evidence and data needed to 

set industry standards and design guidelines. NIST has a deep and 

varied expertise in advanced composites, which I look forward to 

hearing more about in the hearing. It is my understanding that 

there are over a dozen projects across NIST that work to measure, 

model, and predict the performance of advanced composites for a 

variety of applications. 

I’m well aware of the challenges our nation’s infrastructure is 

facing and the anticipated cost of its restoration. I look forward to 

learning more about the potential value of using composites in infrastructure and the economic case for composites as an alternative 

or supplement to conventional materials in infrastructure projects. 

I appreciate you all for taking the time to join me for this hearing. As the Administration and Congress begin to consider how to 

tackle the nation’s infrastructure challenges, it is important to understand what role composites can play. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Webster follows:] 
5 
6 

Mr. WEBSTER. I now recognize the Ranking Member from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, for an opening statement. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I want to thank Chairwoman Comstock 

in her absence today for holding the hearing on this important 

topic, and I want to thank the witnesses for being here to share 

your thoughts on the use of advanced composite materials for 

major infrastructure. 

Much of the nation’s major infrastructure is nearing or has 

passed the end of its design lifespan. The American Society of Civil 

Engineers’ 2017 Infrastructure Report Card gave our nation’s infrastructure a grade of D-plus based on assessments of capacity, condition, resilience, innovation, and other criteria. And our current 

infrastructure is under increased strain year after year as our population grows. We must find a way to ensure the safety of our nation’s expanding population as demands on our roads, bridges, utilities, and other essential infrastructure increase. 

I sit on the House Transportation Infrastructure Committee, and 

I understand that the status quo is clearly not acceptable. In addition, we need to examine our approach to rebuilding infrastructure 

as climate change and other factors drive increases in the intensity 

of wildfires, hurricanes, and other extreme events wreaking havoc 

on dams, bridges, above- and below-ground utilities, and other essential structures. These are long-term challenges that require 

long-term solutions. But right now, we don’t have the funding necessary to close investment gaps and build the infrastructure we 

know that we need. 

As we make plans to shore up our infrastructure and build for 

the future, we must take advantage of all the tools at our disposal. 

This includes using innovative technologies and emerging materials 

where they offer the best value for a project. Materials such as 

fiber-reinforced polymer composites or advanced composites which 

are—which we are examining in today’s hearing, they play a key 

role in how the nation addresses its challenges under constrained 

resources. 

Decades of federal and private sector research and development 

and investment in advanced composites has resulted in a significant use of these materials in some sectors such as defense, aerospace, automobile, and energy industries. While composites have 

also been used in some construction and infrastructure applications 

such as strengthening concrete, making bridge repairs, and building bridge decks, they haven’t been used as widely for infrastructure as they have been in other sectors. 

I commend NIST for producing the report we are reviewing in today’s hearing. They brought together federal, private, and university partners to identify and examine how to overcome barriers to 

adoption of composites and sustainable infrastructure, including 

challenges to developing a skilled workforce. 

I look forward to hearing from Dr. Lange and others about ways 

we can incorporate advanced composites into our engineering education and training programs to make sure that all those involved 

in designing and building our infrastructure have the knowledge 

and skills to use whichever material is best for the job. This will 

require updates for undergraduate and graduate engineering curriculum, training programs for the construction trades, and profes-
7 

sional development plans in a wide range of industries. Doing this 

successfully necessitates the cooperation of governments, educational institutions, and industry. I’m glad we have representatives from all these sectors here today. 

As we examine ways to increase the use of advanced composites, 

it is important that we don’t lose sight of the strength of traditional 

materials like concrete and steel. Both repair and upgrades of existing infrastructure and for new projects, we need to have safety 

and design standards in place to allow engineers to choose the best 

material for the job and allow novel and traditional materials to 

work together. Finding smart ways to improve our roads, bridges, 

pipelines, and other infrastructure is a major priority of mine. I 

look forward to your testimony today. Thank you, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:] 
8 
9 
10 

Mr. WEBSTER. All right. Now, I’ll introduce our witnesses for 

today. First, Dr. Joannie Chin, our first witness today, is the Deputy Director of an the Engineering Laboratory at NIST, one of the 

seven resource labs within NIST. As Deputy Director, Dr. Chin provides programmatic and operational guidance for the Engineering 

Lab and includes nearly 500 federal employees and guest researchers from industry, universities, and research institutes. It is the 

Engineering Lab’s mission to promote the development and dissemination of advanced manufacturing and construction technology 

guidelines and services to the U.S. manufacturing and construction 

industry. 

Prior to being Deputy Director, Dr. Chin previously served as a 

leader of the Polymeric Materials Group. Dr. Chin received a Bachelor of Science in polymer science and engineering from Case Western Reserve University. She received a Master of Science in chemistry, as well as a Ph.D. in materials engineering science from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 

Our second witness is Dr. Hota GangaRao, a Wadsworth Distinguished Professor in the Statler College of Engineering at West 

Virginia University. He also serves as the Director of the Constructed Facility Center and Director of the National Science Foundation’s Industry–University Cooperative Research Center for composites infrastructure at West Virginia University. 

Dr. GangaRao specializes in fiber-reinforced polymer composites, 

bridge structures, advanced materials research, composites for 

blasting, fire resistance, and others. Dr. GangaRao received his 

Ph.D. in civil engineering from North Carolina State University 

and is a registered professional engineer. 

Mr. Lipinski, do you want to introduce Dr. Lange? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. It is my pleasure to introduce Dr. 

David Lange, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering 

and Director of the Center for—of Excellence for Airport Technology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Dr. 

Lange also serves as President of the American Concrete Institute, 

Technical Society, and Standards Developing Organization. 

Dr. Lange holds a B.S. in civil engineering from Valparaiso University, an MBA from Wichita State University, and a Ph.D. in 

civil engineering from my alma mater, Northwestern University. 

And I almost majored in civil engineering but I went with mechanical there as an undergrad, so—he’s—Dr. Lange has been a member of the faculty at the University of Illinois for the past 25 years 

and has earned numerous awards and honors, including the prestigious NSF Career Award, a Fulbright Award, and several accolades for his publications and teaching. 

Dr. Lange’s research focuses on interface between the structural 

engineering and materials science of concrete and includes topics 

such as airport pavement, recycled concrete, and fiber reinforcement of concrete. His research group has played an important role 

in the O’Hare Airport Modernization Program, coming up with design concepts that save the Chicago Department of Aviation millions of dollars. I also understand that when he’s not in the lab, 

Dr. Lange enjoys spending time with his five-month-old granddaughter and is looking forward to another granddaughter on the 
11 

way, and congratulations. And I want to thank you for being with 

us today, Dr. Lange, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Our final witness today is Mr. Shane Weyant, 

President and CEO of Creative Pultrusions, Inc. located in Alum 

Bank, Pennsylvania. Creative Pultrusions is a subsidiary of Hill & 

Smith Holdings, PLC, an international group with leading positions in the design, manufacture, and supply of infrastructure products and galvanizing services. Creative Pultrusions is a leader in 

the manufacture of fiberglass-reinforced polymer protrusion products. Mr. Weyant has been with Creative Pultrusions for nearly 30 

years. He received a Bachelor of Science in economics from 

Frostburg State University, where he graduated magna cum laude. 

And now, Dr. Chin, you have five minutes to present your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JOANNIE CHIN, 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

ENGINEERING LABORATORY, NIST 

Dr. CHIN. Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Lipinski, and 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to 

discuss NIST’s role in promoting the adoption of advanced composites to renew our infrastructure and to increase its resilience in 

communities prone to or recovering from disasters. 

At NIST, our world-class experts use unique facilities to measure 

materials with increasing precision and characterize new materials 

for the first time. We help American industries develop, test, and 

manufacture products with features that outperform previous generations. Our broad program in advanced materials include advanced composites; that is, polymers reinforced with fibers or other 

additives. 

Advanced composites can play a significant role in renewing our 

nation’s crumbling infrastructure and help existing infrastructure 

be more resilient to both usual wear and natural disasters. Compared to traditional materials, advanced composites are often 

stronger, lighter, and longer-lasting, thereby offering many cost 

savings, including fewer days lost to repair and maintenance. That 

means fewer hours stuck in traffic detoured around bridges, roads, 

and levees under repair, fewer days in the dark due to broken utility poles, and more efficient movement of the goods and services 

that underpin our economy and quality of life. 

The American advanced composites industry contributes about $22 billion to the economy each year, and although we currently 

lead the world in advanced composite technology, adoption of these 

materials for infrastructure has been slower in the United States 

than in Canada and Europe. To understand the barriers to using 

these materials in the United States, NIST convened a workshop 

in February 2017 with infrastructure engineers, designers, and 

owners, in partnership with the American Composites Manufacturers Association. This May, we will hold a similar workshop with 

stakeholders interested in using advanced composites to reinforce 

existing structures to make them more resilient to seismic events. 

So from the NIST ACMA workshop, we learned that many owners and design professionals don’t yet have enough confidence in 

the reliability and long-term durability of advanced composites to 
12 

specify their use in new structures, as well as to repair damaged 

ones. We also learned that designers and engineers need data and 

design guidance so they can provide appropriate safety margins, 

while maximizing the weight and cost savings of these materials. 

NIST has the expertise to address these needs. We have been 

studying advanced composites since the 1980s and are a leader in 

characterizing the performance and properties of advanced composites on all scales from nano to macro. For example, to study durability, we have developed sensors that visualize the molecular nature of damage and composites. We also have unique device that 

accelerates the effects of weathering on materials and large-scale 

testing facilities that evaluate the effects of strong loads on advanced composite structures. 

Our experience providing a data infrastructure for the Materials 

Genome Initiative is now helping members of the advanced composites community capture and share information on material 

properties. We will assist the advanced composites community as 

they establish a clearinghouse of curated existing design guides 

and data from completed projects, which will inform additional 

science-based codes and standards. 

Our Community Resilience Program provides guidance to architects, design engineers, and community leaders to enable critical 

decisions about which materials help communities recover rapidly 

and build back better. While NIST is not a regulatory agency, we 

have long provided strong scientific foundations for the consensus 

standards developed by industry. NIST staff members provide leadership and technical expertise to more than 1,800 positions on committees for ASTM International, the international organization for 

standardization and other standards development organizations. 

So we greatly appreciate the Members of this Committee and 

others in Congress for their support of federal acceleration of the 

adoption of advanced composites for infrastructure, helping to keep 

our nation globally competitive and economically secure and contributing to our quality of life. I am happy to answer any questions 

you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Chin follows:] 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

Mr. WEBSTER. I recognize Dr. GangaRao for his five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. HOTA V. GANGARAO, 

WADSWORTH DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR, 

STATLER COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 

WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY 

Dr. GANGARAO. Honorable Congressmen, Chairman Webster, 

Members of Research and Technology Committee, I’m immensely 

grateful for your invitation to speak on my team today, which is 

the infrastructure renovation through smart composites manufacturing and construction, coupled with testing standards and enforcement. 

As all of you know in this room, our aging, perhaps aged infrastructure is rapidly deteriorating, certainly not collapsing. The bulk 

of our infrastructure problems can be attributed to $1.5 trillion 

funding gap between the revenue and the infrastructure needs for 

2016 to 2025. This is costing $3,400 per year per family and leading to 2.5 million fewer jobs and, even more importantly, $7 trillion 

loss to businesses. 

How to bridge this need versus a revenue gap? The—do we need 

more debt? Do we need to increase the gas tax? A couple of these 

will have adverse effects on our economy, as you all know. Today, 

I want to present an alternative to this august body that is about 

instead of replacing crumbling infrastructure, as our Congressman 

Lipinski pointed out, we should provide resources to renovate our 

infrastructure to get the biggest bang for the buck using advanced 

composite materials. 

Currently, composites account for less than one percent of the 

structural materials by volume in spite of their many advantages 

such as the high-strength corrosion resistance, lighter weights, and 

better performance per unit weight. 

What are the challenges ahead and what are the economic advantages? Producers of steel and concrete should not view composites as a competitive product or as a threat to their markets. Composites will never fully replace traditional materials, but they are 

another tool in a toolbox, and they would be hybridized well with 

steel and concrete. 

Through our National Science Foundation-funded center, the 

Center for Integration of Composites into Infrastructure, we have 

shown composite wraps have been used to renovate several deteriorated structures at five to ten percent of the replacement cost by 

repairing some of the concrete piers, steel piles, and the list goes 

on. 

At West Virginia University, we worked on lighter bridge decks 

weighing only about 1/4 of a typical concrete deck. We worked on 

sheet piles with other industry folks to protect hostile erosions 

using composites. We developed utility poles that cost half the cost 

of steel transmission towers, and we also are developing high-pressure gas pipes to push more gas at a faster rate. We are involved 

heavily in navigational structures such as the lock gates, and the 

list goes on. 

Efforts are underway to develop composite modular housing subsystems that are multifunctional, multimodal, mold free, and durable. Using smart manufacturing and construction methods, housing 
22 

costs can come down dramatically, as it has been done by Henry 

Ford’s assembly line-type operations. 

To be at the cutting edge of research, development, and innovation of composites and infrastructure, NIST workshop—as alluded 

now a few minutes ago—of 2017 identified five critical areas to be 

overcome. One of them we can do here is to help the industry develop smart manufacturing and construction tools with composites 

and also develop uniform codes and project qualification through 

third-party certification, need to require future projects to consider 

composites as alternate designs. We need to invest in 3.2 million 

workers dealing with the designs, contracts, maintenance, and 

management of composites. 

In conclusion, composites are cost-effective and durable. Largescale applications of composites will create huge markets and open 

new opportunities, including the smart rehab methods and educating 3.2 million American workers dealing with the constructionrelated industry. To enhance American productivity of workers, we 

must invest in the composites in terms of research development 

and implementation. 

Finally, to maintain public safety, investment in infrastructure 

restoration through composites and hybridization with conventional 

construction materials have to be made in tandem with standardization of products and quality control. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. GangaRao follows:] 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 

Mr. WEBSTER. Dr. Lange, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID LANGE, 

PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, 

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 

Dr. LANGE. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Lipinski, and 

other Committee Members, I appreciate this kind introduction an 

opportunity to share my ideas today. 

I wear two hats today, one as Professor of Civil Engineering at 

the University of Illinois, the second as President of the American 

Concrete Institute, an organization of 20,000 members from the 

construction industry, the design profession, and academia. 

FRP is a class of high-strength, low-weight, and durable materials that can be fabricated in a wide array of shapes and properties. The attractive aspects of FRP have motivated significant investment in research and many funded demonstration projects over 

the years. 

Despite attractive attributes and a successful track record in 

field demos, we do not see a widespread adoption of FRP in construction today. Certainly, one explanation is the presence of two 

dominant design paradigms in commercial construction: reinforced 

concrete and structural steel. These tried-and-true systems have a 

100-year head start on FRP. 

Furthermore, concrete and steel technologies are not standing 

still. Large organizations like the American Concrete Institute 

work tirelessly to advance these technologies. A century of commitment at ACI assures that today’s concrete is not your father’s concrete. 

The adoption of FRP depends on a wider effort to harmonize material systems. The two dominant silos—concrete and steel—need 

effective crosstalk and openness to new material such as FRP. It 

can be done. As an example, ACI has opened a path for use of FRP 

rebar, and ASTM has released specification language for those 

bars. 

Market penetration of FRP should be driven by authentic advantages: durability, low weight, organic shapes, flexibility, highstrength capacity. Those are among the competitive advantages of 

FRP. 

Indeed, FRP has excelled in certain applications. The aircraft 

and marine industries and more recently the market for wind turbine blades and cooling towers have embraced FRP. In construction, FRP products have found a place in market niches such as 

corrosion-proof rebar and as a material for repair of concrete structures. 

Despite seemingly high potential for FRP and infrastructure, the 

topic is almost nonexistent in civil engineering education. Courses 

dedicated to FRP and structural repair are rare among the 220 

civil engineering programs in the United States. Engineering education has not functioned as a change agent. 

There are opportunities to affect civil engineering education. Like 

other professions, civil engineering is moving toward requiring 

more than a bachelor’s degree to practice in the profession. As master’s degrees grow, the curriculum can better accommodate spe-
28 

cialty topics like FRP if the need from industry were to drive it. 

Beyond that, we need courses that harmonize concrete, steel, masonry, wood, and FRP. The future is a world with better integration of material systems. 

Now, a few words about the NIST roadmap. I think the roadmap 

has attractive elements. In particular, I’m drawn to one of the recommendations related to the design data clearinghouse barrier. 

The idea is to charge NIST as a neutral party to compile durability 

data and define limits using codes and standards. Indeed, we can 

see how codes and standards can spur adoption of FRP. The 2017 

release of ASTM D7957 for FRP rebar has already had impact on 

the ability for that product to be specified and designed. Just days 

ago, an industry representative shared with me his positive outlook 

that is based on an upswing in FRP bridge deck projects in recent 

months. 

I also endorse the roadmap plan for its emphasis of FRP curriculum for civil engineers. Given the large body of existing research, it is reasonable that federal funding could foster a modernization movement for civil engineering curriculum that bolsters 

design of FRP and harmonized material systems. 

Lastly, I want to encourage use of a proven mechanism available 

to the Federal Government. That is research centers that incubate 

partnership between academia and industry. My own experience as 

Director of the Center for Excellence for Airport Technology has 

persuaded me that large infrastructure programs can benefit from 

sustained partnership with universities. Since 2005, CEAT has received funding from the O’Hare International Airport and the Chicago Department of Aviation. Every year, we select our research 

projects to inform the decision-making process, reduce risks, and 

save money. Our 12-year track record with O’Hare suggests this 

has been a successful model. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lange follows:] 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 

Chairman SMITH. [Presiding] Thank you, Dr. Lange. And Mr. 

Weyant? 

TESTIMONY OF MR. SHANE E. WEYANT, 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

CREATIVE PULTRUSIONS, INC. 

Mr. WEYANT. Good morning. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member 

Lipinski, and the Members of the Subcommittee, on the behalf of 

Creative Pultrusions and my fellow members of the American Composite Manufacturers Association, I appreciate the opportunity 

today to testify before you on an issue that is vital to our industry 

involving the essential role NIST plays in materials standards. I 

am happy to be here to explain the value that composites offer consumers, communities, and industries across the nation. With manufacturers in each of your districts, we’re a great example of madein-America manufacturing, whose potential has only begun to be 

realized. 

Composites are stronger than other materials such as steel, concrete, and wood. They are lighter and more energy-efficient and 

easier to transfer and install. They offer greater durability and, 

most importantly, are resistant to corrosion and structural degradation. Many of you are already familiar with fiberglass boats. 

Saltwater destroys traditional metal and wood hulls, but fiberglass 

remains unscathed after decades of service and has come to dominate that sector due to the performance. 

Using the same material system, we and other composite manufacturers provide infrastructural solutions with performance and 

other benefits that can far exceed traditional materials of construction. Let me highlight a few examples: composite bridges that can 

be manufactured offsite, installed in less than one day with less 

traffic disruption, and that require minimal maintenance throughout their service life; composite rebar that can replace steel rebar 

in traditional concrete construction and is resistant to rust so it 

won’t degrade; composite utility poles and cross arms that are easier to install are more durable against extreme weather and fire, require less maintenance, and last significantly longer. Only eight 

utility poles were left standing in the Virgin Islands this past year 

after the hurricanes. Those eight poles were composite poles. 

Despite these benefits, barriers to deployment of composites remain. Fortunately, some of these obstacles can be cleared with the 

help of sensible government and industrial participation. A great 

first step was the 2017 workshop that brought folks from NIST together with a wide range of private and public stakeholders to 

work towards solutions. I felt the workshop was a great example 

of positive engagement between industry, academia, and government because it produced actionable results. 

What we know from experience is that the lack of awareness of— 

and, importantly, standards for—composites is our threshold problem. NIST can aggregate existing standards and design data for 

composites and validate them for broader dissemination and use. 

This will help all stakeholders to see the totality of data on composites and understand the further research needed. Their world-class 

laboratories also can help develop durability and performance testing for composite infrastructure products. This data can support 
40 

further development of standards of composites and better arm engineers with the performance knowledge to make them more comfortable with using composite. 

Given NIST’s role in standards in research, the agency has a 

unique capacity to assemble a broad swath of stakeholders and ensure that this work is impactful. We believe all materials, techniques, and designs should stand on their own merit. Our experience with builders and project engineers show that there is a limited knowledge about composites as a structural material throughout the design community. Additional research and data that can 

contribute to standards development will help raise the knowledge 

about composites. 

Likewise, bringing together the various agencies responsible for 

infrastructure investment to participate in this effort can help diffuse knowledge to the asset owners and designers. An existing example of similar collaboration is what is going on with the Institute 

for Advanced Composite Manufacturing and Innovation. Part of the 

Manufacturing USA network, IACMI, working with academia and 

industry and federal agencies, has developed an exciting new technology to recycle composites. Productive collaboration demonstrates 

that federal investment in composites pays huge dividends and, 

coupled with further structural research by NIST we discovered 

today, will help composites contribute more to the overall sustainability of our infrastructure network. 

The demands placed on America’s infrastructure have never been 

greater. To build a network to support the 21st century population 

and economy, there needs to be greater availability of 21st century 

technologies. With some smart investment and hard work together, 

we can make bridge, water systems, and grid failures something of 

the past. The ability to build structures that last centuries instead 

of years is here. We look to Congress for support to help make this 

happen. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weyant follows:] 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 

Mr. HULTGREN. [Presiding] Thank you all so much. I appreciate 

your testimony. I appreciate you being here. 

I’m going to wait with my questions and recognize the gentleman 

from Indiana first for five minutes. 

Mr. BANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to each of 

you for being here this morning. 

We all recognize the need to improve our nation’s infrastructure, 

but we also recognize the precarious fiscal situation that we find 

ourselves in today. The CBO estimates that we are on track to run 

$2 trillion annual deficits by 2028. The CBO also found that we 

will run $82 trillion in total deficits over the next 30 years. We 

need to focus on reducing government spending wherever we can. 

So from what I understand, the main benefit to using composite 

materials as opposed to steel or concrete is the reduction in maintenance costs over the long term. So my first question for each of you, 

is there any data on what kind of cost savings can be expected over 

a 20 or 30 years by using composite materials for various infrastructure projects? Dr. Chin? 

Dr. CHIN. My colleagues from the industry would have more specific figures on the actual cost savings, but we’re very much aware 

of studies and existing installations that have demonstrated great 

reductions in installation costs, impact on the economy in regards 

to road blockages and delays, as well as maintenance and repair, 

as well as replacements over the lifetime of the structure. 

Mr. BANKS. Okay. 

Dr. GANGARAO. Thank you. As I stated in my testimony, we have 

rehabilitated over 100 structures across the country from West Virginia University’s Constructed Facilities Center. I’ll give you two 

examples and I’ll shut up. One of them is the East Lyn Viaduct. 

We rehabilitated it for about 20 percent of the cost of replacement 

in Parkersburg, West Virginia. When I took that job, they said if 

it survives five years, back in 1999, they said they would be happy. 

Last year, we collected the data, and it looks brand new. 

The second example I’d like to quote, which I have done the rehabilitation renovation part, was for Army Corps of Engineers. 

Again, we were able to rehab that complex bridge system with 

$120,000 while in fact it would have costed $4 million to replace 

it. So the list goes on. I’m not going to stand here and talk about 

it anymore. But I would be very happy to supply you with all the 

cost data and also the durability data if you need. 

Mr. BANKS. Okay. 

Dr. LANGE. Your remarked that the main benefit of FRP is reducing maintenance costs. I think there’s truth in that because 

FRP is a very effective repair material. We’re seeing FRP used in 

sheet products that are put onto reinforced concrete structures. It’s 

one of the least-expensive ways to add strengthening in many 

cases. 

But I’m not sure I would say it’s the main benefit of FRP. I think 

having a landscape for design—multiple materials being used, a 

real portfolio of materials—is where we could get even more benefit 

in the future. I think there’s been some limitation to have civil engineering organized in silos where you have the reinforced concrete 

community, the structural steel community working somewhat 
59 

independently and FRP wondering how do we fit into this situation. 

And I think there’s probably a higher calling to try to figure out 

how to give all materials sort of equal access. In some respects engineers should be material agnostic. I don’t really care what particular material is used, I want to get a result. And having more 

materials available will be the best benefit of having FRP in the 

game. 

Mr. BANKS. Okay. And, Mr. Weyant, before you answer that 

question, perhaps with the time left as well you can answer the 

question of what would the cost-benefits of replacing or restoring 

electric lines with FRP composite poles be? 

Mr. WEYANT. On the electric line, it’s more in the reliability, how 

they withstand a lot of the storms. We see that a lot with a lot of 

the electric companies. They’re understanding that value now by 

investing in composites for that reliability. 

As far as the lifecycle, I look at it a couple ways, not only on the 

maintenance side, it’s also the installation side. We have seen cooling towers, marine markets with sheet piling, and also in the utility industry that we have seen probably 30 percent overall lifecycle 

cost savings when using composites. 

Mr. BANKS. Thank you. My time is expired. 

Mr. HULTGREN. The gentleman from Indiana yields back. 

I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, the Ranking Member, 

Mr. Lipinski for five minutes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I wanted to say, first of all, that as Mr. 

Banks was talking about the savings for government and for taxpayers, which I think is critically important, the other part that I 

wanted to ask about is the—what can we do as policymakers here 

in Washington to make sure that the United States maintains a 

strong position in producing in these materials? Obviously, FRP, 

when we’re talking about even things as large as bridges can be, 

you know, put together elsewhere and brought over to the United 

States to be put in place. We’ve seen that with concrete and steel 

bridges. So what can we do to try to make sure we have the right 

incentives in place for the United States to really—our economy 

and jobs to thrive in this—with FRP? So let’s start with Dr. Lange. 

Dr. LANGE. Well, one thing that I would like to emphasize is that 

there is opportunity when we have very large infrastructure programs. O’Hare just announced another $8.5 billion program that 

will add a terminal to the west side of O’Hare, and these kind of 

major infrastructure programs extend for many years. 

The opportunity to partner with university researchers to help 

answer questions about what is going on in that project and how 

new materials might come into it, how new technologies might benefit the project, that I think is a great opportunity. The relationship we’ve experienced in working directly with a major infrastructure program is not terribly common. It’s a little bit unusual that 

we have that kind of a partnership. But I believe it could be a very 

good policy moving forward that we have these major programs to 

pay attention to the research landscape. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Anybody else? Dr. GangaRao? 

Dr. GANGARAO. Thank you. Thank you. I have indicated six different approaches of how we can keep the lead in terms of our 
60 

high-quality products based on composites in my writeup. And I’ll 

talk about a couple of them. One of them is that we do not want 

to be a dumping ground for some inferior product from outside. 

Therefore, we need to maintain very high standards and also enforce these standards of the materials that we are going to be introducing as composites or for that matter as a hybridized material, 

including the conventional materials like steel and concrete. That’s 

one. I can elaborate on that much more later. 

The second important thing is we need to come up with smart 

manufacturing for infrastructure point of view in terms of creating 

as large a subsystem as possible under the manufacturing settings 

so that we gain certain degrees of efficiencies and be able to reduce 

any form of waste that we have right now. We’re 40 percent waste 

in the construction industry. So these are the two I would like to 

focus on. I have four other items I mentioned in my writeup. Thank 

you. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. Mr. Weyant, do you have anything to 

add? 

Mr. WEYANT. Yes, I echo Dr. Lange and Dr. GangaRao’s position. 

I think government needs to take a strong position in two areas. 

We need to invest to enhance the development of the technologies 

to keep us on the forefront and the materials, you know, to be produced in the United States. Also, we need to rebuild America with 

the right materials. While we’re facing these problems of the large 

spend on building the infrastructure is because these materials are 

not lasting. We got products here that can be 50 years plus design 

service life, so down the road, the payback is, as I said earlier, on 

the lifecycle. So we need to make that choice today to rebuild 

America the right way and put people back to work. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. And Mr. Weyant, it probably may surprise you that 

I have driven through Pleasantville many times on my way from 

here to Johnstown, so I wanted to ask you about—do you have 

issues with labor force getting workers who are capable? 

Mr. WEYANT. That is a big demand nowadays, but we reach out 

to a lot of the local high schools and a lot of the trade schools, very 

aggressive on recruiting. But, you know, to train people, too, you 

know, that is a concern. And in the rural area, as you know, Mr. 

Lipinski, that does put a big demand because we have a lot of expansion in our areas with a lot of different manufacturers. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I’m out of time. I yield back. 

Mr. HULTGREN. The gentleman from Illinois yields back. 

I’ll now yield myself five minutes. First, again, I want to thank 

you all for being here, for your testimony. For me this is an especially important hearing today. The State of Illinois, as my colleague and friend from Illinois has already stated, leads in materials science research conducted at our wonderful universities and 

national labs. I want to hear what we’re doing nationally, but I always like to see how Illinois universities are testifying before this 

Committee. I’m grateful for that. 

Infrastructure is also a key priority with every local official I 

meet with, and it’s why I work to preserve key tools for municipal 

finance in the tax reform bill that we had, such as the tax-exempt 

status for municipal bonds. Local officials understand the importance of both construction and maintenance, and they see the long- 
61 

term impact of more resilient infrastructure. So thank you for your 

work. 

Dr. GangaRao, if I could address my first question to you. How 

would research at NIST be integrated in its standards development 

and used by standards development organizations? 

Dr. GANGARAO. NIST has excellent facilities in trying to promote 

any kind of test methodologies, develop the test methodologies, and 

also enforce the testing systems. That’s one way they can do it. The 

second way they can do it is by providing excellent platform in 

terms of educational aspects. There are half a dozen educational 

aspects that I can talk about. They can be the lead nuclei in developing some of these educational aspects. 

And thirdly, they have a great amount of technical know-how 

through their full-time employees, and they can certainly interact 

with not only the university types but also with the industry types 

to promote some of these kinds of advances in a most systematic 

fashion. Thank you. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you. Mr. Weyant, in your testimony you 

say that there is limited awareness by engineers and asset owners 

about the composites as structural material for infrastructure. I 

wonder if you could describe in more detail what you encounter? 

Mr. WEYANT. A lot of times when we approach the design community when you have to introduce a composite material, a lot of 

the traditional materials have design codes, okay? They have their 

own handbooks. When you buy a steel beam from XYZ company 

versus ABC, you know you’re getting the same steel beam. Those 

standards need to be developed, you know. Composites being fairly 

new in the construction market, you know, really came about in 

the mid-80s to ’90s. Those standards, a lot of the engineers do not 

understand them. So we have to educate them. And a lot of the 

companies are a lot smaller and don’t have those resources to really put, you know, in the technical design capabilities to help educate the engineering community. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thanks. Dr. Chin, it’s been cited in numerous reports, including one in 2014 by the President’s Council of Advisors 

on Science and Technology that composites are a crosscutting enabler for the manufacturing technology of the future supporting not 

only infrastructure but also automotive, aerospace, energy, and 

other key sectors. I wonder if you could elaborate on the strategic 

importance of composites to the national economy? 

Dr. CHIN. In regards to the more general application of composites in the sectors that you mentioned, the weight reductions 

through the use of composite materials enable energy savings. 

That’s the primary driver in the aerospace, marine, and automotive 

industries. 

In infrastructure, it’s not a matter of designing based on weight 

constraints, but the availability of composite materials that can be 

prefabricated, premanufactured offsite, brought to the construction 

sites, and installed much more quickly. The weight savings in this 

particular case also lends itself to much more rapid installation, 

which mitigates the delays, obstacles, roadblocks, all of the issues 

involved with construction projects that reroute people and goods 

around the points where the construction is taking place. Those 

have an impact that may not be as measurable in terms of eco-
62 

nomic return on investments, but you can definitely see the impacts on the lost time. And just in terms of the process of getting 

people and goods from point A to point B, there is definitely a dollar value associated with those benefits of composites as well. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you. I’m just about out of time. I may follow up if that’s all right with you. I had a question just in regards 

to opportunities for students and graduates to obtain hands-on experience with composites with internships and research, so I may 

follow up to see if I can see if you have suggestions or ideas from 

that. 

With that, my time is expired, and I will recognize the Ranking 

Member of the full Committee, Ms. Johnson from Texas, for five 

minutes. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Lipinski, for holding this hearing. And thanks to all the 

witnesses for being here. 

In addition to this Committee, I serve as a senior member of 

Transportation and Infrastructure. And I really do understand the 

challenges that we face in crumbling infrastructure. My home district of Dallas, Texas, was recently named the fastest-growing metropolitan area in the country by the U.S. Census. It also rated it 

as the 10th worst city in the nation for traffic congestion in another 

recent report. And though there has been great improvement from 

last year’s position, which was number five, commuters still face a 

daily tackle with bottlenecks, wasting time and fuel, and this is a 

struggle for many communities, I’m sure. 

And while it is an example of perhaps reaching the stars, I’d like 

you to explain to me what your feelings are about what type of 

emerging technologies that we will be looking at for our infrastructure needs, and also, how would we go about preparing our workforce? I’m particularly interested in the emphasis on resilience and 

materials that we use and the talent that’s needed. We’re already 

looking at aerial transportation, drones, and all kind of alternative 

things. What seems to be realistic? And I’d like to hear from each 

of you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 
63 
64 

Dr. LANGE. Well, let me chime in with one idea here. One thing 

that I would like to add about this discussion about durability is 

that if you want durable infrastructure, you need to ask for durable 

infrastructure. And kind of an old saying, you get what you ask for. 

Too often our contracting mechanism is based on a low bid when 

people are asked to, say, build a road or build infrastructure, the 

winner of that competition is the one who prices it the lowest. 

And when you look at the specifications, they don’t emphasize 

durability like they should. They don’t emphasize lifecycle, as they 

should. The choice is made on initial cost rather than by lifecycle 

cost where you take into account the full length of service life of 

the structure and its maintenance cost. So one issue that is a policy 

issue is how can we move more toward performance specification 

and looking at lifecycle cost. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. Yes? 

Dr. GANGARAO. I’d like to start out by stating certain issues with 

regards to resilient infrastructure. With my center that is the NSFsponsored one dealing with the composites for infrastructure, University of Texas at Arlington is a member of our center, and they 

have been using composite to try to minimize your expansive shale 

problems for your foundations and the roads, so there again, we 

need to use some of these advanced materials that would help enhance the service life of each and every one of these infrastructures. That’s just one of the many other parts. 

The other part is we need to marry these advanced materials 

with the conventional materials so that the longevity can be improved, the traffic jams can be cut down, and what have you. And 

there are many other transportation systems, including some of the 

electronics that are going to be built into it coming into vogue that 

will greatly enhance the efficiency of movement from point A to 

point B. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. Anybody else? 

Dr. CHIN. So one of the big national multiagency programs that 

NIST is involved with is the Materials Genome Initiative. And 

through that program, we seek to accelerate the development of 

these innovative materials that can be used in infrastructure, as 

well as many other industry sectors. But this type of program 

would enable materials scientists and engineers and designers to 

be able to receive the benefits of materials developed at a much 

faster rate, which could potentially be used in infrastructure and 

making it more resilient to natural disasters and other types of 

high impacts. 

We also have a Community Resilience Program which seeks also 

to develop more infrastructure—more resilient materials for use in 

infrastructure. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. My time is expired. 

Mr. HULTGREN. The gentlewoman from Texas yields back. 

The gentlewoman from Connecticut, Congresswoman Esty, is recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you very much. And again, I want to thank the 

Chairman and Ranking Member for holding today’s hearing. You’ll 

find I think all of us are on the Transportation Committee, and 

there’s a reason that we’re also on this Committee, because we rec-
65 

ognize the important challenges facing the country on resiliency in 

our infrastructure, the aging infrastructure laid out so well by you. 

I’ve also been working on this, and I want to make sure to get 

copies of this for each of you. There’s a bipartisan group of Democrats and Republicans in the House called the Problem Solvers 

Caucus. And I was the Co-Chair of this report, which we released 

in January, making several of the points that you’ve underscored, 

Dr. Lange. You just recently talked about the importance of 

lifecycle costs. We’re specifically calling for that. My father and 

grandfather were both civil engineers. I know exactly what you’re 

talking about, and it is the low-bid problem that’s always been a 

problem but never more acute than now when we really need to be 

looking at the entire cycle of the cost, better from day one and lasting much longer. 

I’m also Co-Chair of—and Co-Founder of the Corrosion Caucus, 

so we’ve been looking at these issues in the Resiliency Caucus, the 

importance of upgrading those requirements. 

So I wanted to also flag—again, so you know, that a number of 

us have been working on this in multiple committees. We’ve called 

for the creation—in the report we called for the creation of something like an ARPA H2O to look at the water infrastructure, which 

is often not included in the civil engineers’ report because that 

alone is, you know, approaching $1 trillion of unmet needs to replace and upgrade the nation’s water infrastructure. So when I get 

to questions, I’d ask for your thoughts of whether you think something like an ARPA H2O make sense for basic research, especially 

given that water is delivered at the local level and cannot possibly 

have the research facilities to figure out if you’re Detroit and you 

need to reduce the size of your mains by 3/4 to keep the flows in 

place, they can’t be paying for that research. It’s just not reasonable. We need to have a federal role in that. 

Chairwoman Comstock and I, who chairs this Subcommittee, are 

getting ready to introduce a bill in the coming weeks on this basic 

issue of composites, on the importance of highlighting the need to 

include this as innovation and to include this with new standards. 

One of the pieces we’ve looked at are calling for—and it’s the 

IMAGINE Act, the Innovative Materials in American Grid and Infrastructure Newly Expanded—you can tell that was put together 

to make out IMAGINE—but the IMAGINE Act calls for the creation of an interagency innovative materials task force to assist in 

some of these issues we’ve talked about this morning for assessing 

existing standards and test methods and then compare them 

against these new materials and how they compare. 

The interagency task force would work to identify key barriers in 

the current standards that inhibit market adaptation and adoption 

and develop new methods of protocols, as necessary, to encourage 

incorporations. This interagency task force would be chaired by 

NIST, by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

bringing together the Federal Highway Administration, the Army 

Corps of Engineers, and EPA, and other standard regulatory agencies. 

So, Dr. Chin, can you comment on whether you think that would 

be helpful to have a coordinated effort across the agencies which 
66 

otherwise are siloed, as we know, which is a huge problem. Thank 

you. 

Dr. CHIN. Yes, NIST has had a very long history of collaborating 

with other federal agencies and other primary stakeholders in big 

national initiatives such as the one that you’re describing. We are 

absolutely committed to working in the area of water. That is definitely seen as an area of great importance to the nation. 

Ms. ESTY. And what’s your thoughts on something—or any of 

you—on something on the basic R&D side, something like an ARPA 

H2O? Is that—do we think we’re at a point that there should be 

basic research, or is it more a function of standards and dissemination of best practices? 

Dr. LANGE. Well, I think on the subject of basic research, you’re 

touching on one of the biggest challenges that we have, and that 

is the durability and interaction of materials with their environment. Dr. Chin talked about how NIST has a long history of looking at durability issues. I think that the durability topics are more 

challenging and more necessary than, say, looking at mechanical 

properties of materials. And so I would encourage that kind of direction of looking at durability first. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you. Go ahead. 

Dr. GANGARAO. Basic research is always extremely important, no 

question about it. However, to get the biggest bang for your buck, 

a good bit amount of monies have to be invested in field implementations, experimentation, and evaluations as soon as possible so 

that we establish a protocol of how to do some of these in the field 

and able to disseminate this knowledge base in a widescale manner. Thank you. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you very much, and I see I’m out of time. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, the Gentlewoman from Connecticut 

yields back. 

The gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, Congresswoman 

Bonamici is recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Chairman Hultgren and 

Ranking Member Lipinski. And thank you to all of our witnesses 

for being here today. I’m very glad that we’re discussing infrastructure. And listening to my colleague talk about things like the Corrosion Caucus, you know that we’re all interested in this issue. 

We know that making long-term investments in our nation’s infrastructure stimulates the economy, creates jobs, and drives commerce. And as we restore our roads and bridges and build affordable housing and invest in public transit and upgrade our schools 

and ports and water systems, we need to be responsive to environmental concerns but also creative in the use of emerging materials. 

And I am the Co-Chair of the Oceans Caucus, and marine debris 

is one of our priorities. And recently, I’ve been reading about 

projects that integrate plastic bottles and materials salvaged from 

debris in the ocean into asphalt to create more durable roads. And 

this is the kind of ingenuity we need as we develop an infrastructure proposal. And I know the Chairman of the full committee has 

gone, but I know that Texas is working on a pilot project on this 

as well. 
67 

At Oregon State University in my home state, the Kiewit Materials Performance Lab has been one of the leaders in innovative efforts to test composite materials. The lab is conducting sensitive 

electrochemical investigations to study both corrosion phenomena 

and metals and alloys and the performance and durability of coatings and composite materials. And I visited there, and they’re 

doing some great work. 

Dr. Lange, I wanted to ask you how federally funded researchers 

at universities can best partner with engineers in the private sector 

to support continued advanced research testing and standards development? 

Dr. LANGE. I would say that one of the themes that I have hit 

on, this idea of partnering with major infrastructure programs. 

This is something I would put back on the table. I think that when 

you’re spending, as O’Hare is going to spend $8 billion on the next 

phase of expansion of the airport, there should be a piece of that 

investment used for looking toward the state-of-the-art. Engineers 

working on everyday tasks may not have time to see that state-ofthe-art very clearly, but in partnership with universities, perhaps 

they can. 

With respect to recycled materials, I think that’s a great theme 

to continue to hit. One thing I would encourage is that, as you 

think about recycling materials, try to have some integrity about 

what you’re trying to do with these materials. Sometimes uses of 

recycled materials are almost using concrete as a trash can. How 

many things can we throw into concrete or asphalt without caring 

about the degradation of properties that happens when we do it? 

Wwe really want to find synergy where we get not the only use of 

recycled material but improvement of properties, not a degradation 

of properties. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Right. Absolutely. Well, I’m from Oregon; we recycle everything. So in northwest Oregon, it’s not a question of if but 

when a tsunami triggered by an earthquake happens. We have the 

Cascadia Subduction Zone is going to hit our state. We are overdue. So we’ve been having many conversations about rebuilding our 

infrastructure to withstand these natural disasters. And in the district I represent, the Newberg Dundee Bypass has just been built 

to withstand a 9.0 earthquake. 

But an earthquake is not the only threat facing our Nation’s infrastructure. We also need to be resilient to the effects of climate 

change. And of course with the ocean, we’re seeing acidification, 

we’re seeing more extreme weather events. What is the current 

state of our understanding of how climate change affects infrastructure, and how has that understanding shaped the composites research agenda and standards development to make sure that resiliency is a factor? And anybody who wants to weigh in on that. 

Dr. GANGARAO. I want to answer a couple of things along those 

lines. Before I do that, I want to talk a little bit about the recycling 

aspect of it. At West Virginia University, we have been doing a lot 

of recycling of composites. For example, we can talk in terms of 

low-grade material recycling, as well as a very high-grade material 

recycling, and we have done polymers to recycle and create core 

material that are of low value while in fact create a very highgrade material as a shell for a given system— 
68 

Ms. BONAMICI. Interesting. 

Ms. GANGARAO. —and that helped a great deal. And also, we are 

partnering now with Mexico. CONACYT is an equivalent of NSF 

of ours where they want to recycle a lot of their high-end composites coming out of aerospace and other places. 

There are three or four different ways of recycling it. One is just 

simply burn it. That’s not the best approach. There are a few other 

chemical ways of recycling, and we are looking at those kinds of 

things as well to enhance our productivity levels in the area of 

composites as opposed to dumping in the oceans like you’re referring to. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Right. Right. Thank you. And just—I know I’m 

out of time, but with the Chairman’s indulgence, would you address the climate change issue? 

Ms. GANGARAO. Well, I don’t know a whole lot about the climate 

change. As Dr. Chin pointed out, I think the amount of energy required to produce a unit pound of a composite per unit workability 

and the efficiency of a composite is much less than steel or concrete. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you. The gentlewoman from Oregon yields 

back. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses for your testimony and all 

the members for their questions today. I also do want to send regards from Chairwoman Comstock, who really wanted to be here 

but was not feeling well today, so she sends her regards and gratitude for each of you being here. 

The record will remain open for two weeks for additional written 

comments and written questions from Members. 

Mr. HULTGREN. With that, the hearing is adjourned. Thank you 

so much. 

Dr. GANGARAO. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(69) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
70 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Joannie Chin 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 

Responses by Dr. Hota V. GangaRao 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 

Responses by Dr. David Lange 
82 

Responses by Mr. Shane E. Weyant 
83 
84 

Æ