Difference between revisions of "User:Shawndouglas/sandbox/sublevel5"

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Tag: Reverted
Tag: Reverted
Line 32: Line 32:
From the nylon used in climbing rope to the bolts used in bridges, materials are involved in the manufacture and construction of everything in modern society. In addition to ensuring quality in manufacturing and construction processes, the topic of quality of the materials used in those processes is also vital to address. When processes and materials are of a high, standardized quality, the end result is usually a safer and more reliable item, which is generally sought after by end-users and driven by accreditors and regulators. The company manufacturing climbing rope hopefully recognizes that lives are at risk with those using their products and will take standards like UIAA 101 for Dynamic Ropes<ref name="UIAASafetyStan">{{cite web |url=https://www.theuiaa.org/safety/safety-standards/ |title=Safety Standards - UIAA 101 |publisher=International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation (UIAA) |date=2023 |accessdate=24 October 2023}}</ref> seriously. This manufacturing standard mandates laboratory testing of climbing ropes to a standardized laboratory test method such as EN 892:2012+A3:2023 ''Mountaineering equipment - Dynamic mountaineering ropes - Safety requirements and test methods''.<ref name="UIAASafetyStan" /><ref name="EN892">{{cite web |url=https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/71ce641c-e3dd-42fd-82a6-45aa1e735c38/en-892-2012a3-2023 |title=EN 892:2012+A3:2023 ''Mountaineering equipment - Dynamic mountaineering ropes - Safety requirements and test methods'' |publisher=iTeh, Inc |date=25 April 2023 |accessdate=24 October 2023}}</ref>, as well as UIAA's own methods. As the UIAA notes, "safety has been at the forefront" of its activities<ref name="UIAASafety">{{cite web |url=https://www.theuiaa.org/safety/ |title=Climber Safety |publisher=International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation (UIAA) |date=2023 |accessdate=24 October 2023}}</ref>, while at the same time recognizing that by focusing on safety, the practice of climbing and mountaineering can be positively promoted. Compliant and well-operated materials testing laboratories are critical to giving end users a greater sense of trust in their climbing ropes, further aiding in positive expansion of climbing. (Put another way, fewer people would take on climbing if they knew quality testing wasn't part of the rope manufacturing process.)
From the nylon used in climbing rope to the bolts used in bridges, materials are involved in the manufacture and construction of everything in modern society. In addition to ensuring quality in manufacturing and construction processes, the topic of quality of the materials used in those processes is also vital to address. When processes and materials are of a high, standardized quality, the end result is usually a safer and more reliable item, which is generally sought after by end-users and driven by accreditors and regulators. The company manufacturing climbing rope hopefully recognizes that lives are at risk with those using their products and will take standards like UIAA 101 for Dynamic Ropes<ref name="UIAASafetyStan">{{cite web |url=https://www.theuiaa.org/safety/safety-standards/ |title=Safety Standards - UIAA 101 |publisher=International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation (UIAA) |date=2023 |accessdate=24 October 2023}}</ref> seriously. This manufacturing standard mandates laboratory testing of climbing ropes to a standardized laboratory test method such as EN 892:2012+A3:2023 ''Mountaineering equipment - Dynamic mountaineering ropes - Safety requirements and test methods''.<ref name="UIAASafetyStan" /><ref name="EN892">{{cite web |url=https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/71ce641c-e3dd-42fd-82a6-45aa1e735c38/en-892-2012a3-2023 |title=EN 892:2012+A3:2023 ''Mountaineering equipment - Dynamic mountaineering ropes - Safety requirements and test methods'' |publisher=iTeh, Inc |date=25 April 2023 |accessdate=24 October 2023}}</ref>, as well as UIAA's own methods. As the UIAA notes, "safety has been at the forefront" of its activities<ref name="UIAASafety">{{cite web |url=https://www.theuiaa.org/safety/ |title=Climber Safety |publisher=International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation (UIAA) |date=2023 |accessdate=24 October 2023}}</ref>, while at the same time recognizing that by focusing on safety, the practice of climbing and mountaineering can be positively promoted. Compliant and well-operated materials testing laboratories are critical to giving end users a greater sense of trust in their climbing ropes, further aiding in positive expansion of climbing. (Put another way, fewer people would take on climbing if they knew quality testing wasn't part of the rope manufacturing process.)


Similarly, the engineering firm responsible for constructing a bridge hopefully recognizes that lives are at risk with those crossing bridges and they (and hopefully their subcontractors) will take standards like ASTM F3125 ''Standard Specification for High Strength Structural Bolts, Steel and Alloy Steel, Heat Treated, 120 ksi (830 MPa) and 150 ksi (1040 MPa) Minimum Tensile Strength, Inch and Metric Dimensions'', as well as construction specifications like AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications<ref name="FHAUseOf17">{{cite web |url=https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/steel/171201.cfm |title=Use of High Strength Fasteners in Highway Bridges |author=Hartmann, J.L. |publisher=Federal Highway Administration |date=01 December 2017 |accessdate=24 October 2023}}</ref>, seriously. Test methods for those fasteners, while not all-inclusive, help drive appropriate use and ensure they are manufactured to perform the supportive task they are prescribed for by industry regulations such as U.S. 23 CFR 625.4.<ref name="NA23CFR625.4">{{cite web |url=https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-23/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-625/section-625.4 |title=Title 23, Chapter I, Subchapter G, Part 625, § 625.4 Standards, policies, and standard specifications |work=Code of Federal Regulations |publisher=National Archives |date=05 June 2023 |accessdate=24 October 2023}}</ref> Those regulations exist with the safety of people in mind, and while recognizing that in comparison to the users of climbing rope a likely smaller percentage of people using bridges think about the safety of bridges, broader society can have greater confidence in their use. (Put another way, if a bridge was collapsing every few weeks, fewer people would take on their use, presuming that quality testing wasn't part of the process.)


==Conclusion==
==Conclusion==

Revision as of 17:32, 24 October 2023

This is sublevel5 of my sandbox, where I play with features and test MediaWiki code. If you wish to leave a comment for me, please see my discussion page instead.

Sandbox begins below

Mechanical Testing Lab (5426178692).jpg

Title: What is the importance of a materials testing laboratory to society?

Author for citation: Shawn E. Douglas

License for content: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International

Publication date: October 2023

Materials and materials testing

Before we can answer why a materials testing laboratory is important to society, we have to ask what a material is, and what testing it looks like. The definition of "material" has varied significantly over the years, dependent on the course of study, laboratory, author, etc. A 1974 definition by Richardson and Peterson that has seen some use in academic study defines a material as "any nonliving matter of academic, engineering, or commercial importance."[1] But recently biomaterials like biopolymers (as replacements for plastics)[2] and even natural[3] and engineered biological tissues[4] may be referenced as "materials." (And to Richardson and Peterson's credit, they do add in the preface of their 1974 work that "[a]lthough the volumes are directed toward the physical sciences, they can also be of value for the biological scientist with materials problems."[5] A modern example would be biodegradable materials research for tissue and medical implant engineering.[6]) Yet today more questions arise. What of matter that doesn't have "academic, engineering, or commercial importance"; can it now be called a "material" in 2023? What if a particular matter exists today but hasn't been thoroughly studied to determine its value to researchers and industrialists? Indeed, the definition of "material" today is no easy task.

To complicate things further, a material can be defined based upon the context of use, i.e., as either a raw material or as a product. The ISO 10303-45 standard by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which addresses the representation and exchange of material and product manufacturing information in a standardized way, essentially views materials and products as being interchangeable, complicating matters further.[7][8]

Taking into account the works of various researchers, as well as ISO 10303-45, the concepts of "raw materials"[9] and "chemical elements"[10], and modern trends towards the inclusion of biomaterials in materials science, we can land on the following definition:

A material is discrete matter that is elementally raw (e.g., native metallic and non-metallic elements), fundamentally processed (e.g., calcium oxide), or fully manufactured (by human, automation, or both; e.g., a fastener) that has an inherent set of properties that a human or automation-driven solution (e.g., an artificial intelligence [AI] algorithm) has identified for a potential or realized use environment.

First, this definition more clearly defines the types of matter that can be included, recognizing that manufactured products may still be considered materials. Initially this may seem troublesome, however, in the scope of complex manufactured products such as automobiles and satellites; is anyone really referring to those types of products as "materials"? As such, the word "discrete" is included, which in manufacturing parlance refers to distinct components such as brackets and microchips that can be assembled into a greater, more complex finished product. This means that while both a bolt and an automobile are manufactured "products," the bolt, as a discrete type of matter, can be justified as a material, whereas the automobile can't. Second—answering the question of "what if a particular matter exists today but hasn't been thoroughly studied to determine its value to researchers and industrialists?"—the definition recognizes that the material needs at a minimum recognition of a potential use case. This turns out to be OK, because if no use case has been identified, the matter still can be classified as an element, compound, or substance. It also insinuates that that element, compound, or substance with no use case isn't going to be used in the manufacturing of any material or product. Third, the definition also recognizes the recent phenomena of autonomous systems discovering new materials and whether or not those autonomous systems should be credited with inventorship.[11]

Going down this path leads us to the realization that materials, by definition, are inherently linked to the act of intentional human- or automation-driven creation, i.e., manufacturing and construction. And when we talk about manufacturing and construction, terms such as "quality," "safety," and "reliability" work their way into the discussion, out of necessity. These three traits are vital to anything manufactured and construction, requiring laboratory testing to better ensure those traits are fully represented with the manufactured or constructed item. This is where the importance of a materials testing laboratory comes in.

Materials testing laboratories: helping ensure quality, safety, and reliability

From the nylon used in climbing rope to the bolts used in bridges, materials are involved in the manufacture and construction of everything in modern society. In addition to ensuring quality in manufacturing and construction processes, the topic of quality of the materials used in those processes is also vital to address. When processes and materials are of a high, standardized quality, the end result is usually a safer and more reliable item, which is generally sought after by end-users and driven by accreditors and regulators. The company manufacturing climbing rope hopefully recognizes that lives are at risk with those using their products and will take standards like UIAA 101 for Dynamic Ropes[12] seriously. This manufacturing standard mandates laboratory testing of climbing ropes to a standardized laboratory test method such as EN 892:2012+A3:2023 Mountaineering equipment - Dynamic mountaineering ropes - Safety requirements and test methods.[12][13], as well as UIAA's own methods. As the UIAA notes, "safety has been at the forefront" of its activities[14], while at the same time recognizing that by focusing on safety, the practice of climbing and mountaineering can be positively promoted. Compliant and well-operated materials testing laboratories are critical to giving end users a greater sense of trust in their climbing ropes, further aiding in positive expansion of climbing. (Put another way, fewer people would take on climbing if they knew quality testing wasn't part of the rope manufacturing process.)

Similarly, the engineering firm responsible for constructing a bridge hopefully recognizes that lives are at risk with those crossing bridges and they (and hopefully their subcontractors) will take standards like ASTM F3125 Standard Specification for High Strength Structural Bolts, Steel and Alloy Steel, Heat Treated, 120 ksi (830 MPa) and 150 ksi (1040 MPa) Minimum Tensile Strength, Inch and Metric Dimensions, as well as construction specifications like AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications[15], seriously. Test methods for those fasteners, while not all-inclusive, help drive appropriate use and ensure they are manufactured to perform the supportive task they are prescribed for by industry regulations such as U.S. 23 CFR 625.4.[16] Those regulations exist with the safety of people in mind, and while recognizing that in comparison to the users of climbing rope a likely smaller percentage of people using bridges think about the safety of bridges, broader society can have greater confidence in their use. (Put another way, if a bridge was collapsing every few weeks, fewer people would take on their use, presuming that quality testing wasn't part of the process.)

Conclusion

References

  1. ↑ Richardson, James H.; Peterson, Ronald V. (1974). "Chapter 1: Introduction to Analytical Methods". Systematic Materials Analysis, Part 1. Materials science series. New York: Academic Press. p. 2. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-587801-2.X5001-0. ISBN 978-0-12-587801-2. https://books.google.com/books?id=BNocpYI8gJkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Systematic+Materials+analysis&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjB1OeQx-aAAxWnmmoFHSV2BSsQ6AF6BAgMEAI#v=onepage&q=Systematic%20Materials%20analysis&f=false. 
  2. ↑ Das, Abinash; Ringu, Togam; Ghosh, Sampad; Pramanik, Nabakumar (1 July 2023). "A comprehensive review on recent advances in preparation, physicochemical characterization, and bioengineering applications of biopolymers" (in en). Polymer Bulletin 80 (7): 7247–7312. doi:10.1007/s00289-022-04443-4. ISSN 0170-0839. PMC PMC9409625. PMID 36043186. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00289-022-04443-4. 
  3. ↑ Kurniawan, Nicholas A.; Bouten, Carlijn V.C. (1 April 2018). "Mechanobiology of the cell–matrix interplay: Catching a glimpse of complexity via minimalistic models" (in en). Extreme Mechanics Letters 20: 59–64. doi:10.1016/j.eml.2018.01.004. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352431617301864. 
  4. ↑ Kim, Hyun S.; Kumbar, Sangamesh G.; Nukavarapu, Syam P. (1 March 2021). "Biomaterial-directed cell behavior for tissue engineering" (in en). Current Opinion in Biomedical Engineering 17: 100260. doi:10.1016/j.cobme.2020.100260. PMC PMC7839921. PMID 33521410. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S246845112030057X. 
  5. ↑ Richardson, James H.; Peterson, Ronald V. (1974). "Preface". Systematic Materials Analysis, Part 1. Materials science series. New York: Academic Press. p. xiii. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-587801-2.X5001-0. ISBN 978-0-12-587801-2. https://books.google.com/books?id=BNocpYI8gJkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Systematic+Materials+analysis&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjB1OeQx-aAAxWnmmoFHSV2BSsQ6AF6BAgMEAI#v=onepage&q=Systematic%20Materials%20analysis&f=false. 
  6. ↑ Modrák, Marcel; Trebuňová, Marianna; Balogová, Alena Findrik; Hudák, Radovan; Živčák, Jozef (16 March 2023). "Biodegradable Materials for Tissue Engineering: Development, Classification and Current Applications" (in en). Journal of Functional Biomaterials 14 (3): 159. doi:10.3390/jfb14030159. ISSN 2079-4983. PMC PMC10051288. PMID 36976083. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-4983/14/3/159. 
  7. ↑ "ISO 10303-45:2019 Industrial automation systems and integration — Product data representation and exchange — Part 45: Integrated generic resource: Material and other engineering properties". International Organization for Standardization. November 2019. https://www.iso.org/standard/78581.html. Retrieved 20 September 2023. 
  8. ↑ Swindells, Norman (2009). "The Representation and Exchange of Material and Other Engineering Properties" (in en). Data Science Journal 8: 190–200. doi:10.2481/dsj.008-007. ISSN 1683-1470. http://datascience.codata.org/articles/abstract/10.2481/dsj.008-007/. 
  9. ↑ "raw material". Oxford English Dictionary. https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=raw+material. Retrieved 20 September 2023. 
  10. ↑ Lagowski, J.J.; Mason, B.H.; Tayler, R.J. (16 August 2023). "chemical element". Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/chemical-element. Retrieved 20 September 2023. 
  11. ↑ Ishizuki, Naoya; Shimizu, Ryota; Hitosugi, Taro (31 December 2023). "Autonomous experimental systems in materials science" (in en). Science and Technology of Advanced Materials: Methods 3 (1): 2197519. doi:10.1080/27660400.2023.2197519. ISSN 2766-0400. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/27660400.2023.2197519. 
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 "Safety Standards - UIAA 101". International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation (UIAA). 2023. https://www.theuiaa.org/safety/safety-standards/. Retrieved 24 October 2023. 
  13. ↑ "EN 892:2012+A3:2023 Mountaineering equipment - Dynamic mountaineering ropes - Safety requirements and test methods". iTeh, Inc. 25 April 2023. https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/71ce641c-e3dd-42fd-82a6-45aa1e735c38/en-892-2012a3-2023. Retrieved 24 October 2023. 
  14. ↑ "Climber Safety". International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation (UIAA). 2023. https://www.theuiaa.org/safety/. Retrieved 24 October 2023. 
  15. ↑ Hartmann, J.L. (1 December 2017). "Use of High Strength Fasteners in Highway Bridges". Federal Highway Administration. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/steel/171201.cfm. Retrieved 24 October 2023. 
  16. ↑ "Title 23, Chapter I, Subchapter G, Part 625, § 625.4 Standards, policies, and standard specifications". Code of Federal Regulations. National Archives. 5 June 2023. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-23/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-625/section-625.4. Retrieved 24 October 2023. 
Retrieved from "https://www.limswiki.org/index.php?title=User:Shawndouglas/sandbox/sublevel5&oldid=53278"