"Our study points to a much more competitive environment for the United States," says Alan Porter, director of the Technology Policy and Assessment Center at Georgia Tech. "The playing field is changing from a ski slope to a gentle plateau. No longer is the United States alone on the playing field with the Japanese."

Though the study evaluates nations as varied as Israel, Brazil and the Czech Republic, Porter sees the real action among the "Asian Cubs." These challengers – including China, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and The Philippines – are moving up alongside traditional regional leaders, the "Asian Tigers" of South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore.

"There are eight or 10 countries in Asia that show dramatic changes," he says. "This includes countries like India and China that are going to be real technological powerhouses."

Over the past decade, these nations have developed the technological infrastructure to move from manufacturers of products to developers of products. The growth of indigenous engineering and management capabilities, development of research and development capabilities, and the rise of entrepreneurship signal this transition. Porter says, "When you put these together, you have a real productive capability."

An emphasis on information-based technology has facilitated the change.

"All of these industrialized and industrializing countries can now play in this technology arena," he explains. "The more information-based things become, the more quickly this happens because countries don't need as much heavy infrastructure. It's quicker to get up to speed on information-based technology than it was in heavy industry because of inertia."

The growing importance of new technologies such as genomics may step up that pace. Here, Porter warns, the cautious regulatory stance of the United States could prove a disadvantage in competition with nations that can easily adopt new information-based technology.

Porter and Professor David Roessner – also a faculty member with the Center – have jointly led the production of these "High Tech Indicators" every three years since 1987. Collaborators Nils Newman and Xiao-Yin Jin, respectively, led the compilation of statistical and expert opinion components (from an international panel of 300 experts).

The team derives four input indicators that influence a nation's long-term ability to produce technology products – national orientation (toward technology-based competition), socio-economic infrastructure to support this, technological infrastructure, and productive capacity. They likewise address three output indicators, including technological standing in world markets.

Among the output indicators, which measure the current state of technology export competition, the United States is the clear leader. In 1997, the United States exported $258 billion worth of high-tech products, compared to $152 billion for Japan, $140 billion for Germany, $105 billion for the United Kingdom, $90 billion for France and $70 billion for Singapore.

Of most interest are the input indicators that purport to predict future competitiveness of nations over roughly a 15-year horizon. A chart available online at gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/TECHCOMP.html presents a composite of the four indicators, each scaled to a maximum of 100 for the world's strongest country on that measure; they are then averaged. (The chart represents a composite for selected nations for 1999.) The tendency for toughening competition, particularly from the Asian nations, is apparent.

– John Toon

The full-text news release version of this article can be found at gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/TECHCOMP.html. For more information, contact Alan Porter, Technology Policy and Assessment Center, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332-0205. (Telephone: 404-894-2330); (E-mail: alan.porter@isye.gatech.edu)

There are coneheads working in the Georgia Institute of Technology's School of Civil and Environmental Engineering. No, not the pointy-headed extraterrestrials of "Saturday Night Live" fame, but Georgia Tech engineers with more down-to-Earth interests.

courtesy of Paul Mayne Below the James River Bridge in Virginia, Georgia Tech engineers use a cone penetrometer contained in a special GeoStar truck to probe up to 40 meters into the ground to determine soil composition and load-bearing capacity. Computers on the truck receive data directly from the penetrometer's four sensors. (300-dpi JPEG version - 1.9mb)

They take their nickname from a device called a cone penetrometer, which they use to ascertain the underlying stability and characteristics of a given parcel of land. The technique is actually some 70 years old, but it's getting a new look from these researchers.

Before the design of a major project such as a building, bridge or dam can begin, the ground underneath the proposed construction site must be tested to determine composition and other factors affecting its load-bearing capacity. The information helps engineers devise a foundation design to minimize settling and ensure the structure will stay in place.

In the United States, engineers prefer to gather this data by taking core samples. They use a drill to remove samples of earth at prescribed intervals and then bring them to the surface for study.

In the 1930s, Dutch engineers devised a system using a sensor probe with a pointed or cone-shaped end. Pushed into the ground, the probe's sensors electronically relay information about certain ground characteristics to technicians on the surface. Though still widely used in the Netherlands, where below-sea-level topography makes ground conditions an ongoing concern, the cone penetrometer attracted few followers in the United States. Then about 20 years ago with advances in computer technology, the benefits of cone penetrometers finally began attracting notice in this country.

Paul W. Mayne, a professor in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering's Geosystems Division, has traveled across the Southeast collecting subsurface data in his research for the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Geological Survey.

His cone penetrometer is contained in a special GeoStar truck that also contains machinery for pushing the probe up to 40 meters into the ground and computers for receiving data directly from its four sensors.

"We can measure pore water pressure, resistivity, dielectric properties and shear wave as the probe is pushed into the ground," Mayne says. "It's much faster than boring out samples, plus you get four readings on a continuous basis. With the old-fashioned way, you have only one number for every 5 feet or whatever interval you're extracting samples."

In addition to accuracy, the penetrometer technique is cleaner because no large hole is excavated - the probe is a scant 36 millimeters in diameter. Also, measurements with a cone penetrometer cost about one-tenth of the price of the conventional method.

The basic penetrometer approach can be adapted to different applications, depending upon the properties the sensors are built to measure. Some devices provide information about ground chemistry, for instance, and are useful for environmental analysis of the subsurface. That particular use underscores the advantage of in-ground analysis because contaminated soil is not brought to the surface where it could cause further harm or, at the least, require costly containment steps.

While much of their work has been directed toward improved methods of evaluating cone penetrometer data, Mayne and his colleagues are inventing new types of "cones."

"We developed a device that measures the flow of water into the probe, and from that we're trying to determine the permeability of the soil material, also known as the hydraulic conductivity," he explains. Another design provides 10 independent readings of soil characteristics.

"We're trying to optimize and maximize the number of measurements we can make," Mayne says. "The more information that can be collected, the more applications we can find that will benefit from its use."

– Gary Goettling, freelance writer

For more information, contact Paul W. Mayne, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0355. (Telephone: 404-894-6226) (E-mail: pmayne@ce.gatech.edu)

Also see Research Notes news stories.

Contents    Research Horizons    GT Research News    GTRI    Georgia Tech

Send questions and comments regarding these pages to Webmaster@gtri.gatech.edu
Last updated: Feb. 16, 2001