There are growing environmental concerns and increasing government regulations pushing industries to recycle and/or reuse materials from scrap, trim-offs and end of life components and while thermoset composites are desirable they are considered non recyclable

Challenges to recycling and a cost model are presented

Overcoming these challenges will foster growth of a new industry that utilizes post-industrial scrap material and end-of-life waste from fiber reinforced composite (FRC) manufacturers and markets

Manufacturing Scrap

Raw Material Scrap

-Glasforms of PolyOne produces approximately 480,000 lbs. of GF scrap per year1 -Polystrand is currently working with an end user for GF scraps with possible insulation applications2

Material Trim Offs

-Nylon-6/GF tape shredded and sifted -30-50 wt.% Recyclate blended with neat nylon-6 resin -Extrusion-compression molded -Flexure testing showed the highest and most consistent properties with the third and final reduction/processing method; An optimized processing methodology was chosen -Further testing needs to verify preliminary results3

Part Trim Offs

-SMC panels shredded down and 30 wt.% added to neat nylon-6 resin -Extrusion-compression molded -Tensile tests showed a 35% increase in tensile strength of recyclate and 41% increase in percent elongation; moduli were comparable -Izod tests showed a 12% decrease in average break (J) and 26% decrease in average strength (J/m)4

Machining/ Finishing Scrap

-Machining residue of an E-glass/epoxy (70 wt.% GF) -30 wt.% recyclate combined with 5% MAPP and 65% PP -Compounded and then extrusion-compression molded -Flexural strength and modulus showed an increase of 20% and 30% respectively -Tensile strength and modulus of elasticity increased 15% and 50% respectively5

Reject Parts

-Uses same methodology as trim offs and end of life components

End of Life Components

-MIT-LLC reclaimed CF from Boeing F-18 stabilators -CF skin removed with heating process, recovered CF chopped into 1” squares then pyrolized -Separate “debris” (Al honeycomb, Cu wires, Ti hard points, etc.) from the fibers -Fiber was of good quality (~1/2”-10” length, easily dispersed in water) and was chopped to < 1” -3-DEP used to form fibers into Corvette wheel house support preforms -Reclamation resulted in 96% less energy expended than the manufacture of virgin CF6

A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO COMPOSITE RECYCLING Kristin N. Hardin1 and Selvum Pillay2

1PhD Student Department of Materials Science and Engineering at the University of Alabama at Birmingham 2Associate Professor, Department of Materials Science and Engineering at the University of Alabama at Birmingham

CHALLENGES COST MODEL

FUTURE WORK ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CASE STUDIES Composites are widely accepted as a material that achieves sustainability through light weighting and hence lower fuel consumption thus increasing efficiency of structures. However, composite manufacturing can lead to a number of sources of scrap that invariably ends up in landfills, which is costly and damaging to the environment. To further the sustainability of an already green material the challenges of recycling and reuse of composite materials needs to be addressed. Sustainability and all it entails is becoming an important component to maintaining the current business of the Composites Industry as well as an integral part for future growth. In conjunction with the Green Composites Council Recycling Committee of the American Composites Manufacturing Association (ACMA) a survey was produced and sent out to a cross section of ACMA member companies to facilitate data-development. Highlights of the survey were:

PP+20%VE

Ultimately for a recycling program to be successful, stable and reliable markets for the targeted recyclables need to be identified and established

The market for a particular material depends on both the cost of the recovered raw materials and the quality of the recycled materials from the composite to costs and quality associated with extracting virgin raw materials from the natural environment

Establish an inventory and thus database for the Composites Industry of FRC wastes and highlight current disposal and re-use methodologies

Find suitable applications and markets from waste stream Evaluate reduction techniques Educate manufacturers, management and operators on FRC recycling and change their

mindset on waste to see it as a valuable by-product Develop materials for design of recycling in industry; help implement organized system

• Majority who took the survey were fabricators using mainly spray up or hand lay-up with most common resins and fiber being PE, VE and chopped GF

• Majority produce ~500 lbs./day of scrap and makes up 5-10 % of total production volume (with some as high as 30 %)

• Over 70 % contributed manufacturing scrap to trim offs • 95 % marked reject parts as their source of post-production scrap • Over 90 % sends all of their scrap to landfills and thus recycles none of it • More than half of surveyors said they did not know how much landfilling fees

were; those who did stated $0.05 to $0.20 per pound ($6,500 to $26,000 per year)

• With the projection of the Composite Industry making nearly $35 billion in the year 2017 and the estimate of 30 % total production volume going to scrap, that’s nearly a $10.5 billion loss in revenue

This work focuses on the challenges that face composite recycling yet the feasibility of recycling with an early stage cost model and various case studies. These case studies are presented to show the opportunities available for recycling thermoset composite materials to produce a secondary product with viable properties. The long term objectives of these studies and several others in progress are: To prove to composite manufacturers that composite scrap is recyclable To show composite manufacturers various avenues for recycling (perhaps back into their own production line for a profit by way

of reducing landfill fees) To reduce the amount of composite scrap and end of life products dumped into landfills and thus help create a more safe and

green environment

To my Mentors and Collaborators:

Ed Pilpel, Polystrand and Gordon Composites John Busel, American Composites Manufacturing

Association Mark Janney, Materials Innovation Technologies Richard Pyle, Jordan Reduction Solutions The UAB Materials Processing Application Development

(MPAD) Center

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2010 2014* 2019*

+12.39 +20.93

+24.57 -5.31

-8.97 -10.53

-0.885

-1.495

-1.755

Tota

l Rev

enue

in B

illio

n U

SD

5 % Loss

30 % Loss

17.7

• The industry does not provide a pathway SYSTEMIC

• Cost of landfilling (See Table 1) • Legislation • Penalties

• Environmental health and safety

MOTIVATION

• Rating and composition • Handling • MSDS

• Getting a consistent supply • Supply quality

MATERIAL ORGANIZATION

• Determine best process and ideal parameters • Storage

• Transportation Infrastructure • Power/electricity demand

LOGISTICS

• Knowing the impact • How to regulate/monitor the impact

• Knowing what personal protective equipment (PPE) is needed

HEALTH AND SAFETY

• What are the end uses of the recyclate? • What properties make it competitive?

MARKET PENETRATION

• Work with manufacturers, management and operators to change their perception on “waste” (think of as scrap or a

valuable by-product) • Work with them to show how to recycle and/or reduce scrap

production in their facility

EDUCATION

MOTIVATION AND OBJECTIVE

Tipping Fees in USA State USD/ton

Lowest TX 5-41 Highest WA 28.80-142.01

US Avg. 2008 44.09 US Avg. 2013 49.78

Internal Conversion of Secondary Material to an

Alternative Product

Internal Return to Process

Convert Form and Package for

External Product Convert

to Energy

Handling and Landfill

Costs

100% Plus Return on Cost of Original Raw Material

50% to 95% Return on Cost of Original Raw Material

5% to 25% Return on Cost of Original Raw Material

0% to 5% Recoup a Small Portion of the Original Material

Cost and Avoid Landfill Cost

Additional 2% to 10% Cost Above Original Material Cost

Original Material Cost

Major Points 1. The cost model is based on the actual cost of the raw

material in the manufacturing scrap 2. The conversion to waste from is not considered 3. The cost of conversion from scrap to useable form

(material recovery costs) is included

29.9

35.1

*Based on Global Composite Market projections.

Table 1. Average tipping fees (part of landfill costs) in the US citing the highest, lowest and average values from cleanerenergyprojects.com

References: 1. Alan Castleberry, Glasforms Inc. 2. Ed Pilpel, Polystrand. 3. Pilpel et. al. “ Continuous Fiber Thermoplastic Composites and Recycling

Alternatives.” CAMX 2014 Conference Paper.

4. Material donations from the Kohler company. 5. Part of UAB collaborative work with Ed Pilpel of Gordon Composites. 6. Part of UAB collaborative for with Mark Janney of Michigan Innovation

Technologies.