6 ms·

The title is completely false. Metals are used for their material properties more than just strength but homogeneous strength and stiffness (in all directions)

The title is completely false. Metals are used for their material properties more than just strength but homogeneous strength and stiffness (in all directions) and tolerance to a wide range of environmental conditions (thermal and moisture cycling) Not to mention ease of manufacturing. The material described in the article will never make it out of the lab.

userbinator 9y ago
...products like this already exist, so maybe it will just lead to a refinement of an existing process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardboard
icegreentea2 9y ago
I broadly agree with you, but I think your being a little bit harsh. If the material is sufficiently robust to environmental conditions, then there is room for a strong, directionally biased material. It just won't broadly replace steel (or other alloys). It could find useful niche applications. If its environmentally stable. For example, carbon fiber has so many other nice properties that we'll put up with its directional strength and weave it. Really, this isn't a bid to replace steel or al, but a bid to replace carbon fiber.
jacquesm 9y ago
Engineered wood has been a thing for over 100 years. Wood has a lot of desirable properties that make it a good construction material (fire resistance for instance is much better than steel). This article is definitely missing the wood for the trees to some extent, but it is an interesting development and even if the gain isn't going to be quite as large as indicated and there are some serious questions about whether it will scale or not that does not mean it isn't interesting research. But I agree with you that this is not exactly around the corner for mass production, a whole pile of problems would need to be solved and after they are the product may well end up not being economically viable.
- phonon 9y ago
  > (fire resistance for instance is much better than steel). Specifically, steel melts/weakens in a fire, which can result in loss of structural integrity, while heavy timber will char and then very slowly burn. http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Timber/default.htm http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures... http://www.nzwood.co.nz/faqs/which-building-material-performs-better-in-a-fire-wood-or-steel/ http://www.nzwood.co.nz/faqs/which-building-material-perform...
  - baud147258 9y ago
    When the steel is inside concrete (in case of reinforced concrete), doesn't the concrete protect the steel? And since it's how most steel is used in construction, doesn't steel has an advantage here?
    - masklinn 9y ago
      Concrete does provide some form of insulation as it has a fairly low rate of heat transfer. At the end of the day it'll still heat up though, and it's that heating up which weakens the steel, direct contact is not a requirement (there are specific methods like insulated concrete form which have higher fire resistance).
      - MrLeap 9y ago
        I have a technique I'd use to add heat resistance to steel. Only necessary If we lived in a doomed world where engineers didn't exist and I was asked to make steel more heat resistant. Cover steel beams in a relatively thick later of plaster of paris mixed with very find grain sand. I built a charcoal forge out of that material (I used quartz sand I got from a pool supply store) and it's ludicrously heat resistant. It's lined with 4mm of aluminum (melting point 660°C) and the plastersand layer is about 25mm thick. I can melt steel bar above it without causing any visual changes in the aluminum body. I've used it about 20 times in the last year. Lots of spalling on the plaster layer but for most architectural applications I doubt you need to have a blower fueled inferno happen > 2 times a week during the summer. I wager real engineers have more cost effective, data driven solutions. Just thought it was a neat fact.
yesenadam 9y ago
>The title is completely false. No idea why you claimed that. What is completely false is your claim, by the sound of it. Did the title claim anything about properties other than strength? No. I think you may have meant "The title is misleading (although literally true)" or something. edit: Would downvoters care to explain why? Thanks.

userbinator 9y ago

...products like this already exist, so maybe it will just lead to a refinement of an existing process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardboard

icegreentea2 9y ago

I broadly agree with you, but I think your being a little bit harsh. If the material is sufficiently robust to environmental conditions, then there is room for a strong, directionally biased material. It just won't broadly replace steel (or other alloys). It could find useful niche applications. If its environmentally stable. For example, carbon fiber has so many other nice properties that we'll put up with its directional strength and weave it. Really, this isn't a bid to replace steel or al, but a bid to replace carbon fiber.

jacquesm 9y ago

Engineered wood has been a thing for over 100 years. Wood has a lot of desirable properties that make it a good construction material (fire resistance for instance is much better than steel). This article is definitely missing the wood for the trees to some extent, but it is an interesting development and even if the gain isn't going to be quite as large as indicated and there are some serious questions about whether it will scale or not that does not mean it isn't interesting research. But I agree with you that this is not exactly around the corner for mass production, a whole pile of problems would need to be solved and after they are the product may well end up not being economically viable.

phonon 9y ago
> (fire resistance for instance is much better than steel). Specifically, steel melts/weakens in a fire, which can result in loss of structural integrity, while heavy timber will char and then very slowly burn. http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Timber/default.htm http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures... http://www.nzwood.co.nz/faqs/which-building-material-performs-better-in-a-fire-wood-or-steel/ http://www.nzwood.co.nz/faqs/which-building-material-perform...
- baud147258 9y ago
  When the steel is inside concrete (in case of reinforced concrete), doesn't the concrete protect the steel? And since it's how most steel is used in construction, doesn't steel has an advantage here?
  - masklinn 9y ago
    Concrete does provide some form of insulation as it has a fairly low rate of heat transfer. At the end of the day it'll still heat up though, and it's that heating up which weakens the steel, direct contact is not a requirement (there are specific methods like insulated concrete form which have higher fire resistance).
    - MrLeap 9y ago
      I have a technique I'd use to add heat resistance to steel. Only necessary If we lived in a doomed world where engineers didn't exist and I was asked to make steel more heat resistant. Cover steel beams in a relatively thick later of plaster of paris mixed with very find grain sand. I built a charcoal forge out of that material (I used quartz sand I got from a pool supply store) and it's ludicrously heat resistant. It's lined with 4mm of aluminum (melting point 660°C) and the plastersand layer is about 25mm thick. I can melt steel bar above it without causing any visual changes in the aluminum body. I've used it about 20 times in the last year. Lots of spalling on the plaster layer but for most architectural applications I doubt you need to have a blower fueled inferno happen > 2 times a week during the summer. I wager real engineers have more cost effective, data driven solutions. Just thought it was a neat fact.

yesenadam 9y ago

>The title is completely false. No idea why you claimed that. What is completely false is your claim, by the sound of it. Did the title claim anything about properties other than strength? No. I think you may have meant "The title is misleading (although literally true)" or something. edit: Would downvoters care to explain why? Thanks.