Perceptions of new and Established Waterfront Materials: U.S. Port Authorities and Engineering Consulting Firms
Keywords:
Decking, fendering, perceptions, product/market development, end-users, specifiers, compositesAbstract
A demand exists for strong, cost-effective, durable, and environmentally benign building materials for weather-exposed infrastructure applications. In particular, port authority officials and engineers are seeking waterfront materials with a combination of "ideal" attributes that may not be currently available in the marketplace. Materials science advancements related to composite technologies are ongoing, and composite product lines for waterfront applications are expanding. This paper examines the perceptions of U.S. port authorities and engineering consulting firms regarding new and established waterfront materials in decking and fendering system applications. The findings from a nationwide survey indicate that the most important decking material attribute for U.S. port authorities and engineering consultants was reliable strength, followed by resistance to impact, resistance to decay, and low life cycle cost. The most important fendering material attribute for these two respondent groups was resistance to impact followed by high energy absorption, reliable strength, and structural design flexibility. The least important attribute for both decking and fendering was use of recycled materials. Material performance comparisons generally indicated a strong preference for concrete decking and steel fendering; composites were perceived as intermediate for both applications. In terms of cost, wood was perceived as the best; composites were perceived as the worst. Knowledge ratings of composite products and the receptivity to new technologies indicated that responding engineering consultants perceived themselves to be both more knowledgeable about composite materials and more progressive in the adoption of new technologies as compared to this study's port authority respondents.References
Anonymous. 1996. On the waterfront, plastic makes inroads. Eng. News Rec. Apr. 8. McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY.nAnonymous. 1999. Trex Company, Inc. Prospectus for common stock. Issues by Schroder & Company Inc., and J.C. Bradford & Company, New York, NY. (9 March).nAnonymous. 2000. Engineered wood composites for naval waterfront facilities: Problem statement. 2000. http://wmel32.respark.wsu.edu/problemstatement.html'>http://wmel32.respark.wsu.edu/problemstatement.htmlnArndt, J. 1967. Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new product. J. Marketing Res.4 (August):291-295.nAshley, S. 1996. Bridging the cost gap with composites. Mech. Eng.118(2):76-80.nBaptista, J. 1999. The diffusion of process innovations: A selective review. Int. Econ. Bus.6(1):107-129.nBass, F. 1969. A new product growth model for consumer durables. Mgmt Science15 (January):215-27.nBlack, T. 1998. Salvaging our failing infrastructure: A public works challenge. American City & County113(10):64-79.nBlankenship, A.B., and G. Breen. 1992. State of the art of marketing research. NTC Publishing Group, Chicago, IL.nBusch, P.S., and M.J. Houston. 1985. Marketing: Strategic foundations. Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, IL.nCahill, D. 1994. The marketing concept and new high-tech products: Is there a fit? J. Prod. Innovation Mgmt.11(4):336-343.nCofer, W., Fridley, K., and McLean, D. 1998. Structural design and analysis progress report first quarter 1998. Washington State University, Pullman WA.nCraigie, L. 2000. Personal Communication. Composites Fabricators Association. Arlington, VA. July 28.nCrawford, D., R. DeGroot, J. Watkings, and H. Greaves. 2000 Treatability of U.S. wood species with pigment-emulsified creosote. Forest Prod. J. (50)29-35.nDillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.nEagar, T. 1995. Bringing new materials to market. Technol. Rev.98(2):42-50.nFell, D., and E. Hansen. 1999. Target engineered products to builders most likely to innovate. Wood Technol.126(4):22-25.nFelton, C., and R. DeGroot. 1996. The recycling potential of preservative treated wood. Forest Prod. J. (46)7/8:37-47.nGreen, S., N. Salking, and T. Akey. 2000. Using SPSS for windows: analyzing and understanding data. Prentice Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.nHansen, E., and J. Morrell. 1997. Use of anti-stain chemical treatments by western U.S. softwood lumber industry, Forest Prod. J.47(6):69-73.nHastak, M., and D. Halpin. 2000. Assessment of life-cycle benefit-cost of composites in construction. J Compos. Construction4(3): 103-11.nHenriksen, M. 2000. CFA announces 3.9 billion pounds of composites will be shipped this year. Arlington, VA. http://207.69.234.72/statistics.htm (15 June 2000).nHerszenhorn, D. 1999. Pest is eating at city's edge: A cleaner harbor gives new life to marine borers. New York Times, NY, July 28. B1.nHoffard, T., and D. Pendleton. 1998. SP-2042-SHR: Navy wood survey summary. Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, June. Port Hueneme, CA.nHudson, Brad. 1999. Personal Communication. Sales Representative for Seaward International Inc., Clear-brook. VA. April 16.nInternational Marina Institute (IMI). 1998. Financial & operational benchmark study for marina operators. Report prepared by: Moss Adams Advisory Services, Seattle, WA. Report published by IMI, Nokomis, FL.nKennedy, R. 1999. A man with a fish's-eye view of the city. New York Times, NY, Feb. 26. B2.nKerber, Dennis. 1999. Personal Communication. Sales Representative for Schuyler Rubber Co./SSR Marine Fenders, Woodinville, WA. April 16.nKnights, M. 1996. Plastic lumber: Ready for prime time. Plastics Technology42(8):34-39.nKoebel, T. 1999. Sustaining sustainability: Innovation in housing and built environment. J. Urban Technol.6(3): 75-94.nKotler, P., and G. Armstrong. 1996. Principles of Marketing 7th ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.nKrasner, J. 1998. What's eating Boston harbor? Worm returns. Wall Street Journal, NY, Sept. 23. NE2.nLancaster Composites Inc. Columbia, PA. (not dated). Brochure: Composite Post 40: Marine Piling & Structurals.nLewis, R. 1999. Personal Communication. Sales Representative for Schrader Co., Plastic Pilings Inc., Burlington, WA. April 16.nMahajan, V., E. Muller, and F. Bass. 1990. New product diffusion models in marketing: a review and direction for research. J. Marketing.54 (January): 1-26.nMalvar, L.J., T.A. Hoffard, D.E. Pendleton, and D.E. Hoy. 1998. SP-2035-SHR: Description and requirements for candidate waterfront engineered wood materials and components. March. Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Port Hueneme, CA.nMarch, F. and W. Jarvis. 1997. Application of large woodfiber-plastic composites for marine structures. The Fourth International Conference on Woodfiber-Plastic Composites. Forest Products Society. Madison, WI.nMarch, F. and M. Colturi. 1998. Ports '98: Market advancement for composite marine piling and timber. ASCE. Long Beach, CA. Pp 824-829.nMihaiu, G. (PUB.). 1998. The American Association of Port Authorities: Seaports of the Americas. Compass North America, Coral Gables, FL.nMihaiu, G. (PUB.). 2001. Personal Communication. Publisher of The American Association of Port Authorities: Seaports of the Americas, Compass North America, Coral Gables, FL. January 17.nMitropoulos, P., and C. B. Tatum. 1999. Technology adoption decisions in construction organizations. J. Construction Eng. Management.125(5):330-338.nMitropoulos, P., and C. B. Tatum. 2000. Forces driving adoption of new information technologies. J. Construction Eng. Mgmt.126(5):340-348.nNahb Research Center. 2000. New Building Materials. http://wwwnahbrc.org/'>http://wwwnahbrc.org/nPearl, D., and D. Fairley. 1985. Testing for the potential for non-response bias in sample surveys. University of Chicago Press. Public Opinion Quart.49(4):553-560.nPetru, J. 1999. Personal Communication. Director of Statistical Department of National Marine Manufacturers Association. Chicago, IL. August 20.nPianka, R. 1999. Personal Communication. Sales Representative of Lancaster Composites Inc., Columbia, PA. March 12.nRasmussen, E. 1997. Fathoming the strength of structures. Civil Engineering67(7):58-59.nRoberts, J. 2000. Developing new rules for new markets. Academy of Marketing Sci.28(1):31-44.nRobinson, H. 1999. Personal Communication. Sales Representative for Galva-Foam Marine Industries, Camdenton, Missouri. August 16.nRogers, E. 1995. Diffusion of innovations 4th ed. The Free Press, New York, NY.nRohde, D. 1998. Burrowing crustaceans cause closing of pier. New York Times, NY, Apr. 28. B3.nRosenberg, N., P. Ince, K. Skog, and A. Plantinga. 1990. Understanding the adoption of new technology in the forest products industry. Forest Prod. J.40(10): 15-22.nSchuyler Rubber Co. Woodinville, WA (not dated). Brochure: Marine fenders offshore and dockside.nSeaward International, Inc. Clearbrook, VA. (not dated). Brochure: Seapile, Seatimber, Seacamel: Composite marine piling, timber, and camel.nSherman, R. 2000. Personal Communication. Director of Research and Information Services for the American Association of Port Authorities. Alexandria, VA. January 10. April 26. October 12.nSmith, R. L., R. Bush, and S. Bowe. 1999. A perceptional investigation into the adoption of timber bridges: a national comparative study. Wood Fiber Sci.31(2):204-216.nSmith, R. L., W. Spradlin, D. Alderman, Jr., and E. Cesa. 2000. A perceptional comparison of wood in separate infrastructure markets. Wood Fiber Sci.32(2):239-255.nTanal, V., and A. Matlin. 1996. Marine borers are back. Civil Engineering66(10):71-6.nTobiasson, B., and R. Kollmeyer. 1991. Marinas and small craft harbors. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.nToensmeier, P. 1994. Composites industry eyes civil engineering as next big market. Modern Plastics71 (4): 18-19.nTrinka, M., S. Sinclair, and T. Marcin. 1992. Determinant attribute analysis: A tool for new product development. Wood Fiber Sci.24(4):385-391.nTroutman, D. 1998. Ports '98: High-strength fiber reinforced polymer composites offer new significance to marine pier design, vol. 2. ASCE, Long Beach, CA.nTsinker, G. 1995. Marinas. Pages 413-502 in Marine structures engineering: Specialized applications. Chapman & Hall, New York, NY.nUnited States Department of Agriculture. 1980. The biological and economic assessment of pentachlorophenol inorganic arsenicals and creosote, vol. 1. Wood Preserv. Tech. Bull. 1658-1. Cooperative Impact Assessment Rept. USDA, Washington DC.nUnited States Port Development Expenditure Report. 1998. U.S. Department of Transportation. Oct. Washington, DC.nWestrup, H. 1992. Patching the nation's crumbling highways. Current Science77(14):6-7.n
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The copyright of an article published in Wood and Fiber Science is transferred to the Society of Wood Science and Technology (for U. S. Government employees: to the extent transferable), effective if and when the article is accepted for publication. This transfer grants the Society of Wood Science and Technology permission to republish all or any part of the article in any form, e.g., reprints for sale, microfiche, proceedings, etc. However, the authors reserve the following as set forth in the Copyright Law:
1. All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
2. The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In the case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain Society of Wood Science and Technology written permission as well. However, the Society may grant rights with respect to Journal issues as a whole.
3. The right to use all or part of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, text books, or reprint books.
