Yeah, I can’t believe that after researching metals and carbon fiber videos on TH-cam for just a few minutes that ANYONE would be able to come to that conclusion! May they all see Heaven’s Gates.
For the people saying that carbon fiber underperfomed: Remember that the advantage of carbon fiber is not its raw strength, but its strength to weight ratio. Titanium took 3x the force of carbon before it broke, but it also weighed 3x as much. Also keep in mind that these tests were strictly in compression, while carbon unquestionably performs its best in tension.
"Titanium took 3x the force of carbon before it broke, but it also weighed 3x as much" This is true, but also the driving reason for asking why people hype it up so much if it's about the same as titanium in terms of strength to weight. Especially when you take cost into consideration.
@@pcmasterracetechgod5660 Because you can form carbon fiber into virtually any shape without much issue while it would take a lot more to do the same with titanium. Plus the price is pretty much the same. If you are just sticking norm pieces together, titanium would be better. Make it a bit thinner than the carbon tube and you'd have the same effect. If you are going to have more complex forms and a low number of units, carbon fibre becomes more attractive. There is no absolutely perfect material.
This explains why Titan was never issued a certification of safety. James Cameron was always right about using titanium and stainless steel to build submersibles.
According to some studies, Carbon Fiber can withstand depths of over 7,000 meters. And it certainly survived several trips to the Titanic so it does work. The problem is that nothing can stand repeated dives, and as yet we haven't developed a good way to non-destructively test when Carbon Fiber has reached its limit. I should also point out that the experts don't seem certain yet the carbon fiber caused the failure. Several people have pointed to the very dodgy porthole, and some say it was the combination of the titanium end caps and the carbon fiber that was the real problem. Maybe it was even something else entirely, since it seems like safety wasn't exactly priority number 1 with Ocean Gate.
@@rodh1404 carbon fiber has ALWAYS been developed and used as a tensile reinforcement. It is common knowledge in composites that fiberglass performs similarly if not better than carbon in compression applications. Once you start pulling on the laminate in tension, carbon out performs justbout everything. I think this hull design just used so much of it (4" thick?) as to just brute force the calculations. But as many others have pointed out, typical composite laminations fail over time due to micro crack in the epoxy marix. tiny cracks occur and grow as the structure is loaded. Add extreme thermal cycling and the dimensional changes from the pressure and its gonna break down. Ive built a bunch of skis and skateboards and random parts from CF and glass, nothing too crazy but even with my basic experiences, i would NEVER pursue a CF sub for deep water. The only reason to do it this way is 1. probably cheaper than the extreme grades of metals required 2 much lighter weight, which means support systems for docking the sub needed to be much smaller and cheaper. also carbon fiber has proved time and time again that it is great at seperating rich people from their money. its a good buzzword.
One thing to note if you're watching this after the titan accident: notice that the hydraulic press starts applying less force to the material once it starts yielding. A hydrostatic column, in contrast, is not so kind
@@nutinmyass by being mostly made of fluid, which is in practice incompressible. What makes certain animals (and poorly made submersibles) vulnerable to pressure is gas content, which has to drastically change volume if in contact with a dramatically different pressure environment
Note: that carbon fiber tube was likely _stronger_ than Titan's CF because it was woven in multiple directions (though, obviously, much thinner overall than Titan). But what people keep forgetting to mention about Carbon Fiber is the danger of *repeated stress*. It might handle a given level of stress once, twice, etc. but each time adds tiny fractures and eventually it fails *without notice*. That's why carbon fiber bikes need to be X-rayed for microfractures after any significant accident. _none_ of that was done for Titan after each dive.
I did notice that when the carbon fiber gave under the pressure, it frayed rather than shattering like I'd have expected--is that due to it being woven in more than one direction as well?
Unfortunately, people just keep repeating 'carbon fiber bad' without understanding why. It's not necessarily that it's weaker, it's that when it fails it's sudden and absolute.
Thank you for goodness sakes people are so quick to write off carbon because its "experimental" and not tested that material is plenty strong for 1 or 2 dives the deepest dive ever was done using carbon fiber 35k feet in the Marianas Trench and it was done once for a reason no repeated stresses.
Well, this isnt really indicative of much. They crush carbon fiber in the direction of the filaments, which is much, much worse than how Titan experienced pressure. However, that doesnt take away from the fact that a carbon fiber based pressure hull is bad for external pressure but superior to any metal for internal pressure. So, if you wanted to build a tank to contain internal pressure, carbon fiber will give you the best result in terms of weight and maximum sustainable pressure. But dont make a sub from it...
Also the carbon fibre layers was 5 inches thick, so probably lasted longer but ultimately either end cap glue failed or porthole or carbon fibre delimitation within layers
Carbon performing rather low was to be expected. Because its strength results from the fibers being arranged in the direction of stress and then being pulled. It's like a rope: Strong if you pull on it but doesn't resist any squishing
The main failing point of the material used was actually the resin holding together the beam. Many people be like: “Carbon fiber is stronger than steel! It’s the best material ever, it’s the future…” blah blah blah. What they don’t realize is that only the mere “fiber” is stronger than steel. Common mistake. Even aluminum showed better result… I did expect steel and titanium to outgun it but the aluminum was a surprise. Most people that are into cycling should check this video out before dropping motorcycle money for a carbon toy. XD
@@danielhristov6175 You're missing the key advantage of carbon fiber: it's strong, but *LIGHT.* People don't like it simply because it's "strong", but because it's insanely light for it's strength. If you want pure strength, then sure, use steel. But if you need something that's light, but also rather strong, carbon fiber is an excellent fit.
@@danielhristov6175 Compare the weight to the results and you get why carbon is a valid option. Carbon and Titanium have nearly the same result when weight normalized. It's a lot stronger than aluminium when weight normalized. That is where carbon fibre gains an advantage.
@@PebCak42 I'm sure you know more about it than I do. But looking at the way the CF shreds apart here, wouldn't water have an easier time penetrating it? In any event, OceanGate had no business taking people down there anyway. As we saw in the search for them, anything people can do on the ocean floor, ROVs can do better and safer.
@@nancymcmonarch I'm not that deep into carbon, but from what I understand it's not designed for that type of strressor. It performs reasonably well in the areas it's designed for, considering weight-strength ratio. I'm more into metals.... There are a lot of factors when it comes to materials, some just break/rip without any visible warning, some deform before breaking. It's very important to know what kind of stressor the material will experience... compression vs. tension, enduring stress vs. cycling stress, element exposure etcpp, do you need visible warning or do you have other ways to detect potential flaws & failure. E.g. certain parts for high performance engines are x-rayed for potential flaws that can't be detected any other way. It's a science in it's own right. But I agree, they had no business doing what they did, especially in the way they did it.
@@nancymcmonarch That's part of the problem with CF. Once any kind of fracture of the matrix occurs, water can penetrate and start pulling apart the layers, i.e. delamination.
@@hariman7727 Price and weight. But don't forget the cylindrical shape was also a problem. Spheres are strongest under pressure from all sides. Cameron used spheres.
@@pvpdm why wouldn't it work on metal? I would think you would see the temperature change. The metal may show its surface as an even temperature throughout the change, but it would still be visible that the temperature is changing?
To all the "Scienceticians" observing this anecdote..... The carbon Fibre tube is weakest at the ends. The diameter of the press forces the cylinder BETWEEN the layers of carbon. So, the "failure" you see is the least surprising outcome there could be. Aside from that, CF if an additive material, titanium is a "contiguous" material. If you want the strength of Titanium, simply add more CF. As a test of perspicacity, several of the audience fails.
That's bullshit. Steel is not stronger than Titanium. It depends which steel and which Titanium alloy. And the advantage of titanium is it's strength to weight ratio
Typically the durability of a material is measured by strength to weight ration. This guy performed his test strength to thickness. All these materials are very important, but it depends on application. Overall, titanium is much stronger strength to weight.
@@patB9165 it depends but steel is the strongest when talking about strenght + fracture toughness (greater toughness in general), but yeah titanium is stronger in strenght to weight
Who would of thought this video would pop up 10 months later as a suggested one for me. This press guy hit a home run when he made this and didn't even realize it would take 10 months to really "blow up" 😮
And if the owner hadn't monetized his channel, he wouldn't get shit. TH-cam doesn't provide automatic monetization (which should be illegal), and they fight you even after you register, with a bunch of BS rules that take hours to figure out.
As a metallurgist and fdy engineer I pulled test bars all the time..the psi ratings depending on the alloys was important. Strength, ductility vs wear and fatigue in operation was crucial. CF has flat strength in stress, but no ductility and fatigues quickly. Test bar pulls gave you the boundaries of useage in desired applications.
@@larrybe2900 Bike frames are made from carbon fiber everyday. The top bar is under significant compression. Wing spars are indeed made with carbon fiber caps separated by a shear web. Carbon wings are quite suitable. The compression strength of titanium is 50% of its tensile strength. The compression strength of stainless steel and aluminum is 40% of its tensile strength. The fact that carbon fiber is weaker in compression is like every other structural material.
From the safety point of view, my main concern about carbon fiber is how minimum deformation it shows before coming undone. For a vehicle like a submergible, the deformation from the titanium could mean when it starts showing material fatigue after multiple trips, there is a big chance it will be deformed and survive, allowing a post-submerging inspection to identify it's reaching its limits and decommissioning it before a fatal incident, while the carbon fiber looks for a submergible, it won't show any previous deformation until the trip when it suffers catastrophic failure..
If you look at the pipe here the weave of the fibre shows it going in two directions increacing the strength. The sub only had the fibre strands running in one direction so not as strong as it should have been.
I just feel like metal is somewhat one piece so it won't really make a hole unless something punctures but carbon fiber has so many weaves that there's so many possible places for holes. It probably good for something on land like body armor where you don't have water seeping in and it's tough and lighter than steel but I wouldn't trust it going to a really deep depth where everything fails all at once and you don't know what hits you
@@MrLuffy9131 it didnt leak water... it delaminated lost its strength and failed. if it were to have "leaked" it wouldn't have been imploded. the cabin is pressurized with oxygen right so if it were to leak it would be constantly fighting the pressure of the fluids around it. they would notice the pressure instability and surface but it failed almost instantly with no possibility of taking on water.
The titanium (and steel, PVC, aluminum, etc) in this video failed by yield, which is gradual and detectable. Cyclic stress and fatigue causes failure by crack propagation, which can be much more sudden. Titanium is susceptible to fatigue cracking no matter how high the yield strength, so it must be designed with a maximum number of cycles in mind (just as the carbon fiber in the titan should have been). There's no good reason to make a sub out of carbon fiber, but with properly calculated fatigue life, it could have been safe just like titanium. Really though steel would be the better option because it has a fatigue limit, where if each cycle doesn't exceed the limit, the vessel will always be safe. In some cases it may be cheaper to simply say that the vessel should only complete x number of dives, which is acceptable in most materials, but at the end of the day steel is the only material with a real advantage there.
Great experiment that answered many questions in my mind. Carbon fibre is not even as strong as aluminum but its major advantage is light weight. Also, it proved that steel as one of the oldest human discoveries is still the king of compounds when it comes to strength. Thanks for video.
@commendatore2516 beause people dont understand how cf works. In this case where hes basically pressing the fibers downwards the main force taker is the resin. However the resin only is an addition to fixate the fibers in position. The fibers should take the load, which they do best in tension directed to the fibers. Pointless comparison like this. And as you said, aluminium is not stronger than cf. It just so happens that aluminium is isotropic (takes forces the same no matter which direction) and cf is anisotropic (force taken depends on direction). A well built carbon part will outperform aluminium anyday. Yet, depending on application obviously, maybe not for a sub, but definetly for any other "normal" application like car parts etc.
Here is the ranking: (stainless steel held 15800Kg with 58.62g in pipe shape, which means it held 270k times its own mass but isn't the strongest here) 1. Titanium: 9190kg/32.63g= 282k times own mass 2. Carbon fiber: 2998/10.91= 275k 3. Stainless steel: 15800/58.62= 270k 4. Aluminium: 3840/19.76= 194k 5. Acrylic: 1538/8.69= 177k 6. PVC: 1004/11.43= 88k 7. Steel seam pipe: 4750/57.56= 83k 8. Brass: 2568/45.16= 57k
titanium and brass are wrong, they started to deform way before the marked pressure in the video - watch it again Brass started to deform clearly around 1900-2000kg and Titanium started to bend around 7000 already, while carbon fiber held until 2900.
@@blinzi69 What's being measured is the max pressure it can withstand before catastrophic failure. Deformation obviously isn't good but it's not up to the level of catastrophic.
For those wondering about the *lack of shattering* of carbon fiber, there are 2 possibilities. 1. The height to thickness ratio of the sample was such that buckling (catastrophic failure) would not occur. Criteria based on geometry and material properties will determine if buckling or crushing.will occur. With a longer tube you will see buckling. Thanks to @josephgarrett for pointing this out. 2. Regardless of 1. the nature of a simple hydraulic press will ensure a constant velocity of the head. Otherwise known as constant displacement rate. The hydraulic fluid is pumped into the cylinder at a constant rate meaning constant downward motion after yeilding (failure point). After yeild you can see in the video that the force begins to drop, yet the downward speed is constant. So you can compress the sample by the same amount, but with less and less force. More advanced machines can control displacement and force with software but this test is incapable of applying a constant force to the tube. If there is anything I missed please let me know!
I don't believe this is correct....... the reason there is not catastrophic failure (with any of the specimens) is because someone did their homework and solved for the necessary geometry/stiffness to induce crushing under compression rather than buckling (for example the J.B Johnson/Euler interaction curve).
Agreed, the test is completely unrepresentative on how these materials would behave with uniform external pressure as experienced at extreme depth. To be fair to the makers of the video; it was not intended to be.
fascinating! that makes a lot of sense, thank you for this comment. I guess engineers generally design structures so that any deformation is a failure, catastrophic buckling or not, staying within the safety margin established by a test like this.
Wrote too much for a simple concept: all kinds of fibers resist traction, not compression. Simple this way! On any pressure vessels made of any fiber, when the inner pressure is bigger than the outside pressure the fiber is under traction, but when the outside pressure is bigger than the inner pressure the fiber is under compression!
This is a great video, showing the sheer folly of the Titans construction! It is criminal that there are engineers that would’ve thought carbon fiber is a good idea for a submarine!
metals fail but still retain "somewhat" of a shape and sub occupants might be crushed or might have small chance to survive. carbon fiber was literally "catastrophic" failure with zero chance of survival after failure of crushing integrity. It shatters instead.
not really, titan is a very poor example of that conclusion. it probably had faulty engineering for where the titanium was married with the carbon fiber hull, faulty method of applying the carbon fiber/production of the hull itself and faulty shape for deep sea diving. just to name a few. it probably had sub par solutions all over it
@@zlonewolf probably `easily` avoidable by making the hull much thicker, so the design could theoretically much deeper(even with this shape). not having a subpar marriage of the titanium and the hull(thinner lip to support it and just glue used). not to mention a pressure chamber shaped like sphere instead of a tube. any material could have failed with this design
This is absolute insanity, I was literally doing this exact experiment at home when I stumbled across your video, and because of your warning I just packed away everything instead.
Thanks for the table summary. I was just thinking of doing the same and then saw yours. It's interesting that titanium, carbon, and stainless all have the roughly the same compressionc strength(under a cylendar form) per weigh.
Awesome! Another important factor that could be use to sum up in the ratio is the cost. This is one of the reasons SpaceX choosed Stainless Steel instead of Carbon Fiber at the Starship and Booster
Carbon fiber used as a building material is not the problem. Using it repeatedly without a proper way of testing its integrity after each dive was the problem. Having a submarine with so many glitchy, twitchy, defective safety mechanisms and systems in general was also a problem.
The difference between the pipe steel and the stainless shows that the specific type and quality of the material makes a big difference in it's strength. Unfortunately the maker of this video did not include the specific alloys used or the specific composition of the carbon fiber tube (the percentage of resin and the direction of the fiber weaves makes a HUGE difference in strength), so this demonstration is pretty much worthless. The force at which there was plastic deformation of the material is also really important to know.
Also lacking in the explanation of what he meant by solid stainless. Was it a pipe , tube or machined or drilled out not to mention what grade of stainless and aluminum
Carbon Fiber did better than I expected but still just doesn't handle external compression nearly as well as any of the metals usually used for pressure vessels. Stainless did way better than I expected.
relative strength to weight ratios (compression strength/g weight): stainless steel (unspecified grade) 268 titanium 278 carbon fiber 273 aluminum 192 acrylic 171 PVC 91 mild steel 82 brass 57 only surprise here for me was acrylic, which has a strength:weight ratio near aluminum, though it fails more catastrophically than the others please note your chart @10:35 contains errors. you left out acrylic and misstate the strength of PVC as 1538-- it's 1004 (see @3:45)
If you saw a serious testing of acrylic it will shock you for sure, the testing on this video is done by a non professionnal, acrylic is used in field where he outperforms even stainless steel.
I see a few notes about the carbon pipe, and it's also worth keeping in mind that carbon fiber materials are engineered to be strong when put under certain directional forces. The person designing a pipe wouldn't expect it to be compressed along its length, but instead pushed outwards towards its sides. So this is essentially the toughest thing you could do to this pipe.
Pull strength it will behave another way yes also directions of the strands shows the structure of the force must be applied by the way carbon material used is not advanced one just lining
Who gives a Sht! about rich tards that want to see ship wreck?! Everyday innocent ppl and children die all over the 3rd part countries and you don't whine...
The CF on the Titan was actually weaker than the one in this video. CF tubes are stronger at taking compression when vertical than horizontal. Titan was doomed to fail.
@@forbidden-cyrillic-handle Yeah they do. RUssians do it all the time but guess what. most titanium comes from Russia. Anyways the best thing ocean gate could've done is to just use a steel pipe and add more bouyancy
@@MPjustamanno, they were rightwing libertarian dudebros, as evidenced by the fact that their idea of "diversity" was young white dudes instead of old white dudes. Please try to be less stupid next time you lie.
A high strength to weight ratio only makes sense in airplane design, but for a sub, absolute strength would be the more important feature, I'd think. Excess weight can always be countered with added buoyancy.
The Trieste used a tank of gasoline for negative buoyancy. That's what I would do as well. The tank doesn't require a large wall thickness because gasoline weighs about 6 pounds per gallon and is not compressible but salt water weighs about 8 pounds per gallon thus you have 2 pounds of negative buoyancy for every gallon of displacement.
Don't forget Stockton Rush was an aviation engineer. He could be possessed by these "high tech" materials and consider "traditional" materials inferior, old school, not innovating enough.
_I'm bulletproof, nothing to lose_ _Fire away, fire away_ _Ricochet, you take your aim_ _Fire away, fire away_ _You shoot me down,_ _but I won't fall_ _I am titanium_
OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush also used expired carbon fiber from Boeing to build his Titan pressure vessel. That's even worse. The FAA does not allow airlines to build or repair aircraft using expired CF because it's weaker. The resin used to hold the carbon fibers together is susceptible to degradation over time, which will alter the frame’s properties. Delamination is when layers of carbon fiber begin to unbond due to stress. Steel returns back to its original shape. Damage to carbon fiber remains and accumulates. The material is horrible for a sub. And even stainless steel is subject to corrosion and rusting in saltwater. Non-destructive testing and replacing parts are crucial after every trip. Additionally, the viewport of the Titan submersible was only built to a certifiable pressure of 1,300 meters (4,265 feet). The CEO refused to upgrade it.
Yes. He does have a video with titanium and CF plates, doing bending tests. Not cylinders pressed from the side, but still interesting. I'm going to watch it now. [correction:] The video shows bars from various materials (not "plates").
It wouldn't matter as this also would be unrepresentative of the uniform external pressure experienced by a sealed container at extreme depth. To do this you would need to make a sealed vessel, place it in a pressure chamber filled with water and then increase the pressure of the water.
I thought it might be interesting to compute how many kilos could be supported per gram of material: Brass 57 Steel 82 PVC 91 Acrylic 170 Al 192 SS 268 C 272 Ti 278 *Note: Acrylic was omitted from the end summary in the video and its load bearing capacity was misattributed to PVC.
and yes if we add to that its performance depending on how much one gram costs i think carbon fibre will come on top since satainless stell and titanium are expensive metals
wow glad I read the comments before I got out the calculator. Well done. One must be mindful that this test is simply compression, that's why material engineering looks at l stress in many ways. We developed a ceramic epoxy that wets out a Kevlar wrap on a structure for abrasion resistance. Carbon fiber would be toast in this application. Always good to know as much about the test as possible.
@@go-wycowboys5018 That reminds me of that steel tank they added to the front of a fiberglass boat, and was rubbing for years against the hull, then one day, in the Caribbeans, middle of the night, they had a big waterway and almost sank. For the record, they got saved by a fishing boat nearby that heard the mayday call and had a quick fix bi-component compound on board. So yeah fiberglass and abrasion are empirically confirmed.
Carbon fiber is great for most strength applications but not for compression. As you can see in this video, the hydraulic press compromises the fiber one strand layer at a time.
I was surprised to see stainless steel beat titanium. In my experience stainless steel is a bear to drill or cut through but generally easier to bend than even mild steel. I’d be interested in seeing this test done compressing the tubes via their diameter instead of height.
I remember using stainless steel wood screws and they bent super easy compared to normal deck screws. Maybe there are different types of stainless steel ?
Me too. I am pretty sure only the Titanium one would make it all the way to earth, if they fell through Earths atmosphere. Can't it withstand the most heat of any metal? Also when crushing, any metal will flex at the point where it is the hottest and therefore the softest spot.
Common misconception portrayed in movies. Top steel alloys are way stronger than top titanium alloys. It's just titanium has a much lower density. The titanium and stainless steel shown in this video were definitely not the highest grades by far.
@@Nightdare It only matters in places where you need light weight. Places where weight doesn't matter or you need really high strength steels are used.
Superb experiment. Would have liked to have also compared cross-sectional collapse values. The stainless steel was insanely resistant to deformation. Also, the materials were much less brittle than I imagined.
I guess the stainless steel specifications are much higher than avarage, than we imagine. I mean that's not some common pipe, but some exclusive technologies, like for nuclear plants or so.
@@rb032682 I don't know what he meant by "solid", probably smth related to material specifications, but it was tube, the stainless steel. In the presentation, when he measured diameters and thickness it was tube, and at the end when he picked up the deformed chunk it was also tube.
Thanks. This was more fascinating than usual. I figured the stainless would do pretty well. It is not super hard, but is very tough. Both the stainless and the titanium kept a lot of strength, after the sides started folding.
Stainless is strong but not as strong as many Steel alloys. Some steel alloys are really strong but hard to work with, hence engine steel blocks are so expensive to make.
@@kiyoshim9593 This is true. Tool steel is strong, for sure, but brittle after heat treating. A sample of the same dimensions as these would have broken, instead of folding, in this test, but probably would have held up to more pressure than any of the others. That would have been interesting to see, also. It might have damaged the press, though.
I once bought some armour plate steel, apparently 30% tougher than standard NATO spec , the guys also said they welded it with stainless steel rods, so I guess it was similar in composition, so the toughness demonstrated here does not surprise me. The Russian Mir subs use 50mm thick maraging steel alloy.
Very cool experiment! Thank you. For more meaningful results, it would be helpful to know what alloys, of each metal under test, was used. Also, what the resin system used for the carbon fiber layup. In other words, some baseline properties. Can you operate the press in reverse for tensile testing? Regarding the use of titanium for submersibles. The Russians have been using titanium for sub sea vehicles since the late 1940's. They learned that welding of Ti needed to be done in an inert atm.
Seeing what happened to the carbon fiber under pressure gives insight to the failure method caused by cyclic stress on the hull of the research sub made of the same stuff. As well the response of the steel and titanium which are strong and highly ductile, thus resisting cyclic stress induced faults and brittle fracture. This is exactly why these materials are used by the US Navy in the hulls of our submarines. This video is an excellent education in materials properties. The pvc pipe and metals are an excellent example of whats referred in Materials Science as "plastic deformation", same pretty much goes for the carbon fiber. I expected to see the PVC fail via brittle fracture, did the slow pressure build up induce heat and thus make it more ductile? There are four bonding methods of molecules, ionic, covalent, metallic, and van der Waals. It's all about your bond type and the materials either element or compound, molecular alignment be it natural or induced. Theses are all a very well understood and documented failures of the materials, you should read up on why they fail in these manners. A Very cool display of materials science summed up and shown quite nicely. Being a prior Reactor Operator onboard US Navy Nuclear Subs, materials science was a major part of our studies. Pardon the pun but it was "Science in motion"
The port window was only rated for 1300m and they used at least 4 incompatible materials to build the sub. You can’t attach plastics, metals, rubber, and carbon fiber together and not expect the materials to weaken at contact points over time. Commercial flat roofs are notorious for leaks because of degradation along the contact points between metal flashing, plastic vent caps, and various types of roofing materials. Changes in temperature expand and contract those respective molecules at different rates. Add atmospheric pressure and other unknown factors beyond my knowledge and you definitely have cause for concern.
@@kingwillie206 Agreed. Dissimilar materials have faults induced at the boundary. Carbon Fiber is basically fiber and glue. As both are subject to stress, the "brittle" glue is torn from the fiber. This continues on each dive and now there is a large fault area, which can not support what it did when it was new. Carbon fiber is know to only have a few cycles to it before failure. The steel used when I was in service for our class sub was HY80, good for hundreds of hundreds of compression's and its X-ray'd in port to determine hull integrity with a nuclear source on one side of the hull and film on the other.
@@ColdWarVet607 - That makes what he did even more ridiculous. I imagine the X-Ray process would be difficult to impossible with that sub, but I have no clue and doubt he did it even once.
@@kingwillie206 Very Exspense project to do so and of course you need a nuclear source. I would imagine major ship building yards have them but a small private outfit that built there sub probably not. Not sure if carbon fiber can be xray'd...maybe, but probably too expensive to do again. We only got the hull xray'd after initial build if the hull was cut during an overhaul or damage from collisions. Yep that happens more than the public knows.
If that experiment is ever replicated I'd suggest to include video taken with a thermal camera so that we get an idea of the temperature profile along the length of the test tubes. The energy spent by the press (force times displacement) must go somewhere if the material heats up - and it needs to - the warmed up parts probably get weaker in absorb even more energy so the compression effect concentrates in these places.
Anyone else here doing personal research about the Titan submarine’s implosion? 😅 Can’t believe the builders opted for carbon fiber over titanium after I watched this.
Interesting to speculate whether the titanium end caps of the titan would effectively act like the face plates of the press on the carbon fibre tube in this demonstration. Even though the outside pressure around the subs body tube would be equal all around. If there is a weakness along the length of the Hull maybe a similar process as demonstrated started until water could ingress, then pop.
100 percent what happened. And the port hole was smashed out when the two titanium pieces slammed together and forced everything out the end like a fucked up tube of toothpaste
What I want to know is what that hydraulic press is made of, it’s apparently tougher than any of those metals that got crushed… Make a submarine using the same metals that the hydraulic press is made of… 😮
@@juliencormier8760 You don't need buoyancy to dive 😋 But semi-serious, you'd use this material for the pressure vessel, and mount buoyancy tanks on it
As noted by others, carbon is not good for compression. But it is good for tension strength. I was surprised by the stainless. I thought titanium would perform slightly better. But SS really out performed them all by a wide margin
The reason the Stainless performed the best is it’s weight, if it was the same weight as the Titanium it would perform worse than it, this is because it has a lower strength to weight ratio than Titanium, but it’s high density means it’s heavier than the Titanium pipe of the same size, it may have a slightly lower strength to weight ratio but it doesn’t matter if it weighs that much more The reason it outperformed the Low Grade Steel is because of the difference in how the steel was made, the low grade steel wasn’t made to the same specifications as the Stainless, as such it has different properties, in this case a significantly lower strength to weight ratio, the pipes may have been almost the same weight but because the low grade steel has such a low strength to weight ratio it took much less for it to start bending
But isn't this common knowledge? How did they think a tube of carbon fibre would be a good idea for a submarine, where the force is pure compression? i own a glider that has wings made of glass fibre. More modern planes use carbon fibre too. But here the main force is tension, not compression. Even Boeing and Airbus know this.
@@jaydenlobbe7911So? Even if it weighs a lot more we aren't talking about an application that is sensitive to the weight are we? It's not like we are trying to design an airplane, we are trying to build a submersible that needs resistance to compression. That's why the vast majority of submarines use a high strength steel alloy of some type. The shape of the submarine is also going to have an effect with spheres offering the highest compression resistance.
Yes but the metals have to be painted first, otherwise the camera will not show the correct temperature due to too high surface reflectivity. I filmed a bare stainless pot with boiling water with my IR camera and it only showed the temperature of the room (which reflected on the pot).
@@skunkjobb very strange! On the camera must be a parameter to configure emissivity of the material, but in any cases the pot will emit more infrared radiation than surrounding environment!
Perfect video of why you don't make submarines out of carbon fiber.
Must be what they made the Titan out of
I just looked it up. Dear Jesus, it actually was made from carbon fibre
@@OrcaStree yea it was partially carbon fiber pary titanium
Yeah, I can’t believe that after researching metals and carbon fiber videos on TH-cam for just a few minutes that ANYONE would be able to come to that conclusion! May they all see Heaven’s Gates.
@@markbaz dude was playing with people's lives for 250k each
For the people saying that carbon fiber underperfomed:
Remember that the advantage of carbon fiber is not its raw strength, but its strength to weight ratio. Titanium took 3x the force of carbon before it broke, but it also weighed 3x as much. Also keep in mind that these tests were strictly in compression, while carbon unquestionably performs its best in tension.
"Titanium took 3x the force of carbon before it broke, but it also weighed 3x as much" This is true, but also the driving reason for asking why people hype it up so much if it's about the same as titanium in terms of strength to weight. Especially when you take cost into consideration.
al chile si
@@pcmasterracetechgod5660
Because you can form carbon fiber into virtually any shape without much issue while it would take a lot more to do the same with titanium. Plus the price is pretty much the same.
If you are just sticking norm pieces together, titanium would be better. Make it a bit thinner than the carbon tube and you'd have the same effect.
If you are going to have more complex forms and a low number of units, carbon fibre becomes more attractive.
There is no absolutely perfect material.
@@carstekoch effect*
@@Emeraldd_33
Thanks, german auto correct took over.
This explains why Titan was never issued a certification of safety. James Cameron was always right about using titanium and stainless steel to build submersibles.
According to some studies, Carbon Fiber can withstand depths of over 7,000 meters. And it certainly survived several trips to the Titanic so it does work. The problem is that nothing can stand repeated dives, and as yet we haven't developed a good way to non-destructively test when Carbon Fiber has reached its limit. I should also point out that the experts don't seem certain yet the carbon fiber caused the failure. Several people have pointed to the very dodgy porthole, and some say it was the combination of the titanium end caps and the carbon fiber that was the real problem. Maybe it was even something else entirely, since it seems like safety wasn't exactly priority number 1 with Ocean Gate.
@@rodh1404 nice
@@rodh1404 carbon fiber has ALWAYS been developed and used as a tensile reinforcement. It is common knowledge in composites that fiberglass performs similarly if not better than carbon in compression applications. Once you start pulling on the laminate in tension, carbon out performs justbout everything. I think this hull design just used so much of it (4" thick?) as to just brute force the calculations. But as many others have pointed out, typical composite laminations fail over time due to micro crack in the epoxy marix. tiny cracks occur and grow as the structure is loaded. Add extreme thermal cycling and the dimensional changes from the pressure and its gonna break down.
Ive built a bunch of skis and skateboards and random parts from CF and glass, nothing too crazy but even with my basic experiences, i would NEVER pursue a CF sub for deep water. The only reason to do it this way is 1. probably cheaper than the extreme grades of metals required 2 much lighter weight, which means support systems for docking the sub needed to be much smaller and cheaper. also carbon fiber has proved time and time again that it is great at seperating rich people from their money. its a good buzzword.
“Rich people from their money” 😂🤣😆
Cameron should stick to making movies and STFU.
That blue little man is fighting for his life 3:42
coitado kkkk o smurf não aguentou a pressão
No
@ yes
Hydraulic Press Channel: do NOT try this at home.
Stockton Rush: hold my gamepad
😂🤣 You’re an ass! But you’re funny so it’s cool.
well... didn't say "do not try this at ocean".
Make sure you don't destroy the gamepad. We're gonna need it.
Sick people talking about a dead person, why is the world so evil....
I.e people
Oooh too soon 😆
One thing to note if you're watching this after the titan accident: notice that the hydraulic press starts applying less force to the material once it starts yielding. A hydrostatic column, in contrast, is not so kind
💯💯💯
I think the speed that the material compresses is slower than the press
How tf do fish and soft jellyfish just swim around that deep like nothing is bothering them
@@nutinmyass by being mostly made of fluid, which is in practice incompressible. What makes certain animals (and poorly made submersibles) vulnerable to pressure is gas content, which has to drastically change volume if in contact with a dramatically different pressure environment
Pretty sure the prees reached 10 tons by the end for aluminum which was much higher than the 3.8 ton limit.
Note: that carbon fiber tube was likely _stronger_ than Titan's CF because it was woven in multiple directions (though, obviously, much thinner overall than Titan). But what people keep forgetting to mention about Carbon Fiber is the danger of *repeated stress*. It might handle a given level of stress once, twice, etc. but each time adds tiny fractures and eventually it fails *without notice*. That's why carbon fiber bikes need to be X-rayed for microfractures after any significant accident. _none_ of that was done for Titan after each dive.
This comment is underrated.
I did notice that when the carbon fiber gave under the pressure, it frayed rather than shattering like I'd have expected--is that due to it being woven in more than one direction as well?
Isn't this true to some extent with all materials? Is it just much worse with carbon fiber?
Unfortunately, people just keep repeating 'carbon fiber bad' without understanding why. It's not necessarily that it's weaker, it's that when it fails it's sudden and absolute.
Thank you for goodness sakes people are so quick to write off carbon because its "experimental" and not tested that material is plenty strong for 1 or 2 dives the deepest dive ever was done using carbon fiber 35k feet in the Marianas Trench and it was done once for a reason no repeated stresses.
Apple CEO watched this video before iPhone 15 launch 😂
Titanium kitni makhan ki tarah hua titanium bohot strong hao yaar 😊
What u gona do? Load iphone under 10000 kg 😂?
next: steel frame😂
No, before apple card lauch
After watching this I’m amazed that the Titan was able to do as many dives as it did before it imploded.
It helped that they aborted a good amount of those trips due to other complications
Well, this isnt really indicative of much. They crush carbon fiber in the direction of the filaments, which is much, much worse than how Titan experienced pressure. However, that doesnt take away from the fact that a carbon fiber based pressure hull is bad for external pressure but superior to any metal for internal pressure. So, if you wanted to build a tank to contain internal pressure, carbon fiber will give you the best result in terms of weight and maximum sustainable pressure. But dont make a sub from it...
Also the carbon fibre layers was 5 inches thick, so probably lasted longer but ultimately either end cap glue failed or porthole or carbon fibre delimitation within layers
@@GaniscolThe carbon fiber Mr. arrogant CEO used was not even laminated properly. It was all in one direction instead of crosshatched. 🤦🏻
Wear and tear was probably the reason it imploded too
"Don't repeat this at home"
Let me just pull out my hydraulic press real quick
Less than $600 can get you a 50t hydraulic press no problems.
@@Senkino5o Really? I Though their prices starts at least from tens of thousands...
No man, you gotta listen. It's dangerous. I just put back my hydraulic press once I read that warning.
Just take your hydraulic press to somebody elses home.
Instructions unclear. Penis stuck in hydraulic press.
Carbon performing rather low was to be expected. Because its strength results from the fibers being arranged in the direction of stress and then being pulled. It's like a rope: Strong if you pull on it but doesn't resist any squishing
That kind of stretching strength is called Tensile strength.
The main failing point of the material used was actually the resin holding together the beam.
Many people be like: “Carbon fiber is stronger than steel!
It’s the best material ever, it’s the future…” blah blah blah.
What they don’t realize is that only the mere “fiber” is stronger than steel.
Common mistake.
Even aluminum showed better result… I did expect steel and titanium to outgun it but the aluminum was a surprise.
Most people that are into cycling should check this video out before dropping motorcycle money for a carbon toy.
XD
@@danielhristov6175 You're missing the key advantage of carbon fiber: it's strong, but *LIGHT.* People don't like it simply because it's "strong", but because it's insanely light for it's strength. If you want pure strength, then sure, use steel. But if you need something that's light, but also rather strong, carbon fiber is an excellent fit.
Also, cf varies pretty wildly in quality
@@danielhristov6175 Compare the weight to the results and you get why carbon is a valid option. Carbon and Titanium have nearly the same result when weight normalized. It's a lot stronger than aluminium when weight normalized. That is where carbon fibre gains an advantage.
Wow, these results completely surprised me with solid stainless steel taking that much pressure. Great video.
It would be interesting to see this with a thermal camera to see the heat build up and spread through the materials.
Yeah, I would watch this video.
And tungsten
Was thinking the same thing
Genius video idea.
So even aluminum is more pressure-resistant than CF? Damn! Those OceanGate fools would have had better chances in a giant Pepsi can.
Aluminium(& most of its alloys) has the same problem carbon has, cycle fatigue.
@@PebCak42 I'm sure you know more about it than I do. But looking at the way the CF shreds apart here, wouldn't water have an easier time penetrating it? In any event, OceanGate had no business taking people down there anyway. As we saw in the search for them, anything people can do on the ocean floor, ROVs can do better and safer.
@@nancymcmonarch I'm not that deep into carbon, but from what I understand it's not designed for that type of strressor. It performs reasonably well in the areas it's designed for, considering weight-strength ratio. I'm more into metals.... There are a lot of factors when it comes to materials, some just break/rip without any visible warning, some deform before breaking. It's very important to know what kind of stressor the material will experience... compression vs. tension, enduring stress vs. cycling stress, element exposure etcpp, do you need visible warning or do you have other ways to detect potential flaws & failure. E.g. certain parts for high performance engines are x-rayed for potential flaws that can't be detected any other way. It's a science in it's own right.
But I agree, they had no business doing what they did, especially in the way they did it.
Nope
@@nancymcmonarch That's part of the problem with CF. Once any kind of fracture of the matrix occurs, water can penetrate and start pulling apart the layers, i.e. delamination.
4:03 - Carbon Fiber 7:07 - Titanium
thank you so much
Thank u ❤️🔥
The titan submersible
@@Dubbedm22 yes
You are the best
3:41 looks like a blue guy trying to lift
Yeah😂
In case anyone was wondering how they ranked strength to weight wise...
Titanium - 278.5 (kg/g)
Carbon fibre - 272.5
Stainless steel - 267.8
Aluminium - 192
Acrylic - 170.9
PVC - 91.3
Low grade steel - 81.9
Brass - 57.1
thx
So carbon fiber doesn't even have an appreciable advantage...
@@hariman7727 the price I think
@@hariman7727 Price and weight. But don't forget the cylindrical shape was also a problem. Spheres are strongest under pressure from all sides. Cameron used spheres.
So much for my brass submarine plans. 😢
Do you happen to have an infrared camera? It would be very cool to see how temperature changes when different materials being pressed!
Up
It wouldn't work on the metals.
@@pvpdm why wouldn't it work on metal? I would think you would see the temperature change. The metal may show its surface as an even temperature throughout the change, but it would still be visible that the temperature is changing?
@@rob_olmstead Crushing steel objects with hydraulic press THERMAL CAMERA EDITION!
@@marinetechknj it's because infrared bounces off of metallic surfaces if I'm not mistaken.
Well done Oceangate for choosing carbon fiber 👏
cf doesnt just fail when it fails. it fails like in the end of the video....catastrophically. Absolute insanity.
they didnt watch this videoes
…and for combining CF with composite materials and an acrylic porthole
To all the "Scienceticians" observing this anecdote.....
The carbon Fibre tube is weakest at the ends. The diameter of the press forces the cylinder BETWEEN the layers of carbon. So, the "failure" you see is the least surprising outcome there could be.
Aside from that, CF if an additive material, titanium is a "contiguous" material. If you want the strength of Titanium, simply add more CF.
As a test of perspicacity, several of the audience fails.
Ouch. Maybe too soon,but spot on.
it never ceases of being interesting just how some materials decide to react so violently
That's why Superman is the "Man of Steel" and not of Titanium !
Better if we express " Man of Stainless Steel " 😀
That's bullshit. Steel is not stronger than Titanium. It depends which steel and which Titanium alloy. And the advantage of titanium is it's strength to weight ratio
Typically the durability of a material is measured by strength to weight ration. This guy performed his test strength to thickness. All these materials are very important, but it depends on application. Overall, titanium is much stronger strength to weight.
@@patB9165 it depends but steel is the strongest when talking about strenght + fracture toughness (greater toughness in general), but yeah titanium is stronger in strenght to weight
😂😂😂
Who would of thought this video would pop up 10 months later as a suggested one for me. This press guy hit a home run when he made this and didn't even realize it would take 10 months to really "blow up" 😮
Yeah
Over 11 million views. The entire population of Sweden is only 10,5 million! Well done.😊
@@disappointedbananas2365 lol.
Who would have thought.
And if the owner hadn't monetized his channel, he wouldn't get shit. TH-cam doesn't provide automatic monetization (which should be illegal), and they fight you even after you register, with a bunch of BS rules that take hours to figure out.
As a metallurgist and fdy engineer I pulled test bars all the time..the psi ratings depending on the alloys was important. Strength, ductility vs wear and fatigue in operation was crucial. CF has flat strength in stress, but no ductility and fatigues quickly. Test bar pulls gave you the boundaries of useage in desired applications.
It doesn't fatigue quickly. Many aircraft manufacturers are using carbon fiber wing spars because their fatigue behavior is much better than aluminum.
carbon fiber is very durable and has a long lifespan. the same piece oceangate got was a recycled piece from an old aircraft.
Half of a wing is in compression so CF is not suited.
@@larrybe2900 Bike frames are made from carbon fiber everyday. The top bar is under significant compression. Wing spars are indeed made with carbon fiber caps separated by a shear web. Carbon wings are quite suitable. The compression strength of titanium is 50% of its tensile strength. The compression strength of stainless steel and aluminum is 40% of its tensile strength. The fact that carbon fiber is weaker in compression is like every other structural material.
@@FlatOutFE in tension yes.
From the safety point of view, my main concern about carbon fiber is how minimum deformation it shows before coming undone.
For a vehicle like a submergible, the deformation from the titanium could mean when it starts showing material fatigue after multiple trips, there is a big chance it will be deformed and survive, allowing a post-submerging inspection to identify it's reaching its limits and decommissioning it before a fatal incident, while the carbon fiber looks for a submergible, it won't show any previous deformation until the trip when it suffers catastrophic failure..
If you look at the pipe here the weave of the fibre shows it going in two directions increacing the strength. The sub only had the fibre strands running in one direction so not as strong as it should have been.
I just feel like metal is somewhat one piece so it won't really make a hole unless something punctures but carbon fiber has so many weaves that there's so many possible places for holes. It probably good for something on land like body armor where you don't have water seeping in and it's tough and lighter than steel but I wouldn't trust it going to a really deep depth where everything fails all at once and you don't know what hits you
@@MrLuffy9131 it didnt leak water... it delaminated lost its strength and failed. if it were to have "leaked" it wouldn't have been imploded. the cabin is pressurized with oxygen right so if it were to leak it would be constantly fighting the pressure of the fluids around it. they would notice the pressure instability and surface but it failed almost instantly with no possibility of taking on water.
The titanium (and steel, PVC, aluminum, etc) in this video failed by yield, which is gradual and detectable. Cyclic stress and fatigue causes failure by crack propagation, which can be much more sudden. Titanium is susceptible to fatigue cracking no matter how high the yield strength, so it must be designed with a maximum number of cycles in mind (just as the carbon fiber in the titan should have been). There's no good reason to make a sub out of carbon fiber, but with properly calculated fatigue life, it could have been safe just like titanium. Really though steel would be the better option because it has a fatigue limit, where if each cycle doesn't exceed the limit, the vessel will always be safe. In some cases it may be cheaper to simply say that the vessel should only complete x number of dives, which is acceptable in most materials, but at the end of the day steel is the only material with a real advantage there.
Many metals will "complain" either visually or audibly when stressed.
Great experiment that answered many questions in my mind. Carbon fibre is not even as strong as aluminum but its major advantage is light weight. Also, it proved that steel as one of the oldest human discoveries is still the king of compounds when it comes to strength. Thanks for video.
@commendatore2516 beause people dont understand how cf works. In this case where hes basically pressing the fibers downwards the main force taker is the resin. However the resin only is an addition to fixate the fibers in position. The fibers should take the load, which they do best in tension directed to the fibers. Pointless comparison like this.
And as you said, aluminium is not stronger than cf. It just so happens that aluminium is isotropic (takes forces the same no matter which direction) and cf is anisotropic (force taken depends on direction). A well built carbon part will outperform aluminium anyday. Yet, depending on application obviously, maybe not for a sub, but definetly for any other "normal" application like car parts etc.
Here is the ranking:
(stainless steel held 15800Kg with 58.62g in pipe shape, which means it held 270k times its own mass but isn't the strongest here)
1. Titanium: 9190kg/32.63g= 282k times own mass
2. Carbon fiber: 2998/10.91= 275k
3. Stainless steel: 15800/58.62= 270k
4. Aluminium: 3840/19.76= 194k
5. Acrylic: 1538/8.69= 177k
6. PVC: 1004/11.43= 88k
7. Steel seam pipe: 4750/57.56= 83k
8. Brass: 2568/45.16= 57k
The comment I was looking for! Thanks for saving me the hassle 🙂
Nice
Acrylic and pvc are about 50% and 300% stronger than brass respectively. I would have never guessed it
titanium and brass are wrong, they started to deform way before the marked pressure in the video - watch it again Brass started to deform clearly around 1900-2000kg and Titanium started to bend around 7000 already, while carbon fiber held until 2900.
@@blinzi69 What's being measured is the max pressure it can withstand before catastrophic failure. Deformation obviously isn't good but it's not up to the level of catastrophic.
Savage reply from "Solid Stainless Steel" to "Titanium"!
For those wondering about the *lack of shattering* of carbon fiber, there are 2 possibilities.
1. The height to thickness ratio of the sample was such that buckling (catastrophic failure) would not occur. Criteria based on geometry and material properties will determine if buckling or crushing.will occur. With a longer tube you will see buckling. Thanks to @josephgarrett for pointing this out.
2. Regardless of 1. the nature of a simple hydraulic press will ensure a constant velocity of the head. Otherwise known as constant displacement rate. The hydraulic fluid is pumped into the cylinder at a constant rate meaning constant downward motion after yeilding (failure point). After yeild you can see in the video that the force begins to drop, yet the downward speed is constant. So you can compress the sample by the same amount, but with less and less force.
More advanced machines can control displacement and force with software but this test is incapable of applying a constant force to the tube.
If there is anything I missed please let me know!
I don't believe this is correct....... the reason there is not catastrophic failure (with any of the specimens) is because someone did their homework and solved for the necessary geometry/stiffness to induce crushing under compression rather than buckling (for example the J.B Johnson/Euler interaction curve).
Pressure made it heat up and delaminate? Basically melt? *the glue
Agreed, the test is completely unrepresentative on how these materials would behave with uniform external pressure as experienced at extreme depth.
To be fair to the makers of the video; it was not intended to be.
fascinating! that makes a lot of sense, thank you for this comment. I guess engineers generally design structures so that any deformation is a failure, catastrophic buckling or not, staying within the safety margin established by a test like this.
Wrote too much for a simple concept: all kinds of fibers resist traction, not compression. Simple this way! On any pressure vessels made of any fiber, when the inner pressure is bigger than the outside pressure the fiber is under traction, but when the outside pressure is bigger than the inner pressure the fiber is under compression!
This video aged well. Stockton didn't even pass his TH-cam exam.
I'm amazed how different grades of steel have such variance in their strength.
Thank you for the video; it was very informative.
wrrg, no such hting as grade or high, low etc
So much for carbon fiber being as strong as steel. Pretty definitive proof right there.
This is a great video, showing the sheer folly of the Titans construction! It is criminal that there are engineers that would’ve thought carbon fiber is a good idea for a submarine!
metals fail but still retain "somewhat" of a shape and sub occupants might be crushed or might have small chance to survive. carbon fiber was literally "catastrophic" failure with zero chance of survival after failure of crushing integrity. It shatters instead.
It wasn't an engineer that thought carbon fiber was a good choice. In fact the engineer that quit did so because carbon fiber was chosen.
not really, titan is a very poor example of that conclusion. it probably had faulty engineering for where the titanium was married with the carbon fiber hull, faulty method of applying the carbon fiber/production of the hull itself and faulty shape for deep sea diving. just to name a few. it probably had sub par solutions all over it
@@zlonewolf probably `easily` avoidable by making the hull much thicker, so the design could theoretically much deeper(even with this shape). not having a subpar marriage of the titanium and the hull(thinner lip to support it and just glue used). not to mention a pressure chamber shaped like sphere instead of a tube. any material could have failed with this design
How about all those expensive bicycles out there? I feel safer on my old steel Schwinn.
Even after it started to balloon the Titanium was still holding over 7,000kg! Insane material.
Best thing about it is it's strength to weight ratio compared to solid steel. Lightweight and strong.
i was mo impressed by d stainless steel
They should've included a diamond pipe.
@@deancafe4739 haha cant b though
@@shackilleuhdeal7462 The low grade steel was "ANNEALED" for cold working by looking at it's behaviour in the test .
This is absolute insanity, I was literally doing this exact experiment at home when I stumbled across your video, and because of your warning I just packed away everything instead.
amazing, you possibly saved him from a calamity of epic proportions!
Bullshit.
@@mattmarzula wooosh
Sarcasm Level Infinity! ;)
the sarcasm was so strong I didn't realize it was a joke at first
would love to see one with densified wood
You mean "Petrified" ? like when it sort of appears to have Crystalized over time?
Hey :) cool tests
Quick note : there's a bug in the summary @ 10:40 (PVC is 1004 according to your tests, and acrylic is 1538)
For those wondering about resistance / weight ratio, sorted by best ratio first, here is the summary :
type - resistance - weight - ratio
titanium - 9190 - 33 - 278
carbon - 2998 - 11 - 272
stainless steel - 15800 - 59 - 267
aluminium - 3840 - 20 - 192
acrylic - 1538 - 9 - 170
pvc - 1004 - 11 - 91
steel seam pipe - 4750 - 58 - 81
brass - 2568 - 45 - 57
thanks
Thanks for the table summary. I was just thinking of doing the same and then saw yours. It's interesting that titanium, carbon, and stainless all have the roughly the same compressionc strength(under a cylendar form) per weigh.
So should I be glad my teeth are acrylic ?
Thank you! I wanted to know this, but was too lazy to do it.
Awesome! Another important factor that could be use to sum up in the ratio is the cost. This is one of the reasons SpaceX choosed Stainless Steel instead of Carbon Fiber at the Starship and Booster
“Don’t repeat at home " …. Damn, what à I going to do with this massive hydraulic press in my kitchen now ?
Make flat bread.
Hydraulic pressed orange juice hmm :D
Given recent events, some people do have to be told not to put carbon fiber under immense compressive force
the ironing
😂my wife's cakes are sometimes so hard they could be parts of that hydraulic press
that carbon fiber sub didnt stand a chance
Carbon fiber used as a building material is not the problem.
Using it repeatedly without a proper way of testing its integrity after each dive was the problem.
Having a submarine with so many glitchy, twitchy, defective safety mechanisms and systems in general was also a problem.
The difference between the pipe steel and the stainless shows that the specific type and quality of the material makes a big difference in it's strength.
Unfortunately the maker of this video did not include the specific alloys used or the specific composition of the carbon fiber tube (the percentage of resin and the direction of the fiber weaves makes a HUGE difference in strength), so this demonstration is pretty much worthless.
The force at which there was plastic deformation of the material is also really important to know.
Also lacking in the explanation of what he meant by solid stainless. Was it a pipe , tube or machined or drilled out not to mention what grade of stainless and aluminum
Who’s here binge watching after the tragic submersible incident?
me
Yep
Me best for submarine metal stainless steel
Think Ill place all my bets on titanium thanks .. watching that carbon fiber tear lol
It's me! It's MEEE!!!!!
7:45, it's over 9000 !!! 😲😲
Carbon Fiber did better than I expected but still just doesn't handle external compression nearly as well as any of the metals usually used for pressure vessels. Stainless did way better than I expected.
Stainless steel is pretty strong
And stainless steel is a lot cheaper than titanium I bet.
relative strength to weight ratios (compression strength/g weight):
stainless steel (unspecified grade) 268
titanium 278
carbon fiber 273
aluminum 192
acrylic 171
PVC 91
mild steel 82
brass 57
only surprise here for me was acrylic, which has a strength:weight ratio near aluminum, though it fails more catastrophically than the others
please note your chart @10:35 contains errors. you left out acrylic and misstate the strength of PVC as 1538-- it's 1004 (see @3:45)
9:42 "IT'S OVER 9000!"
Damm you kakharott!!
The strength of that fragile acrylic is most impressive to me.
Yeah that one surprised me as well.
If you saw a serious testing of acrylic it will shock you for sure, the testing on this video is done by a non professionnal, acrylic is used in field where he outperforms even stainless steel.
Yeah same thoughts here , very tuff stuff for plastic.
Geometric
yeah they are really strong
Thats why you dont go down 2.5 miles with carbon fiber lol
These demonstrations are very interesting. Thanks for your wonderful work.
I see a few notes about the carbon pipe, and it's also worth keeping in mind that carbon fiber materials are engineered to be strong when put under certain directional forces. The person designing a pipe wouldn't expect it to be compressed along its length, but instead pushed outwards towards its sides. So this is essentially the toughest thing you could do to this pipe.
Pull strength it will behave another way yes also directions of the strands shows the structure of the force must be applied by the way carbon material used is not advanced one just lining
Agreed light weight tensile strength is the benefit of carbon fibre
But overall Carbon fiber is overrated especially in car industries. True it’s light but is not as strong as aluminum even!.
carbon fiber don't take compressive loads? umm you should turn on the TV and watch some F1 racecar's wishbones...
So, don't build a pressure vessel for a submersible out of carbon fiber, is that what you're saying?
Too bad a certain submarine company didn't watch this video.
Oceangate?
@@parvesh.5_357No, the other one.
@@bishopp14 😆 hahaha
Who gives a Sht! about rich tards that want to see ship wreck?! Everyday innocent ppl and children die all over the 3rd part countries and you don't whine...
@@Fairlane55 😁
watching this after news of the Titan Oceanside sub, the difference between carbon fiber and titanium is huge, thats crazy
The CF on the Titan was actually weaker than the one in this video. CF tubes are stronger at taking compression when vertical than horizontal. Titan was doomed to fail.
@@forbidden-cyrillic-handle Yeah they do. RUssians do it all the time but guess what. most titanium comes from Russia. Anyways the best thing ocean gate could've done is to just use a steel pipe and add more bouyancy
@@zarbon700 thats even crazier
Perfect example of why they should make submarines out of diamond.
As soon as I heard carbon fiber , I was flabbergasted. These were trained , highly educated men.
Yup! same ones who tell us a man can breast feed.
@@MPjustamanno, they were rightwing libertarian dudebros, as evidenced by the fact that their idea of "diversity" was young white dudes instead of old white dudes. Please try to be less stupid next time you lie.
A high strength to weight ratio only makes sense in airplane design, but for a sub, absolute strength would be the more important feature, I'd think. Excess weight can always be countered with added buoyancy.
The Trieste used a tank of gasoline for negative buoyancy. That's what I would do as well. The tank doesn't require a large wall thickness because gasoline weighs about 6 pounds per gallon and is not compressible but salt water weighs about 8 pounds per gallon thus you have 2 pounds of negative buoyancy for every gallon of displacement.
Remember when Stockton said ohh "this is bouyancy foam it's is very expensive" and that's what happened
Don't forget Stockton Rush was an aviation engineer. He could be possessed by these "high tech" materials and consider "traditional" materials inferior, old school, not innovating enough.
Stockton confused his submersible for an airplane. He thought he was design ing an airplane to go underwater.
@@enchantereddie Fact: there are more airplanes underwater than there are submarines in the sky. LMAO
If only Titan used Titanium...
_I'm bulletproof, nothing to lose_
_Fire away, fire away_
_Ricochet, you take your aim_
_Fire away, fire away_
_You shoot me down,_
_but I won't fall_
_I am titanium_
@@Model3GenerativeANdroid The A-10's "bathtub".
they did... but only for the endcaps... which survived generally intact, of course.
"Do not try this at home" as if i'm casually having a hydraulic press machine in my room
OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush also used expired carbon fiber from Boeing to build his Titan pressure vessel. That's even worse. The FAA does not allow airlines to build or repair aircraft using expired CF because it's weaker. The resin used to hold the carbon fibers together is susceptible to degradation over time, which will alter the frame’s properties. Delamination is when layers of carbon fiber begin to unbond due to stress.
Steel returns back to its original shape. Damage to carbon fiber remains and accumulates. The material is horrible for a sub. And even stainless steel is subject to corrosion and rusting in saltwater. Non-destructive testing and replacing parts are crucial after every trip. Additionally, the viewport of the Titan submersible was only built to a certifiable pressure of 1,300 meters (4,265 feet). The CEO refused to upgrade it.
I would LOVE to see the same tests done horizontally instead of vertically to see how much pressure it takes to crush/break them that way!
Yes. He does have a video with titanium and CF plates, doing bending tests. Not cylinders pressed from the side, but still interesting. I'm going to watch it now.
[correction:] The video shows bars from various materials (not "plates").
Probably a lot less pressure if done that way
@@tubularap from the sides? would be nice to see who wins PVC of CF
@@kiyoshim9593 - Yeah, PVC was remarkable strong.
It wouldn't matter as this also would be unrepresentative of the uniform external pressure experienced by a sealed container at extreme depth.
To do this you would need to make a sealed vessel, place it in a pressure chamber filled with water and then increase the pressure of the water.
This video clearly explains the failure of titan sub craft😊😇
Others : watching how Aluminium is crushed
Me : vibing on the music of the machine sound at 5:23😂
The strength of that solid stainless pipe is just nuts! I was waiting for it to just shoot out of that press at supersonic speeds.😮💀
I thought it might be interesting to compute how many kilos could be supported per gram of material:
Brass 57
Steel 82
PVC 91
Acrylic 170
Al 192
SS 268
C 272
Ti 278
*Note: Acrylic was omitted from the end summary in the video and its load bearing capacity was misattributed to PVC.
and yes if we add to that its performance depending on how much one gram costs i think carbon fibre will come on top since satainless stell and titanium are expensive metals
wow glad I read the comments before I got out the calculator. Well done. One must be mindful that this test is simply compression, that's why material engineering looks at l stress in many ways. We developed a ceramic epoxy that wets out a Kevlar wrap on a structure for abrasion resistance. Carbon fiber would be toast in this application. Always good to know as much about the test as possible.
@@xVERT4x ... as well as the B787 Dreamliner aircraft.
@@go-wycowboys5018 That reminds me of that steel tank they added to the front of a fiberglass boat, and was rubbing for years against the hull, then one day, in the Caribbeans, middle of the night, they had a big waterway and almost sank. For the record, they got saved by a fishing boat nearby that heard the mayday call and had a quick fix bi-component compound on board. So yeah fiberglass and abrasion are empirically confirmed.
I think the shape of each material would affect this ratio, if they were all spheres for example, their strengths would be different.
So that is why a carbon fiber hull is a stupid idea.... ocean gate forgott to see some videos in youtube during the engineering...
Carbon fiber is as durable as pvc 💀
Carbon fiber is great for most strength applications but not for compression. As you can see in this video, the hydraulic press compromises the fiber one strand layer at a time.
this is not why a carbon fiber hull is a stupid idea.
Carbon :3000
Aluminum: 3800
Titanium: 9100
Stainless steel: 15800
Wow, that little piece of solid stainless steel was just heroic lol that was awesome!
I was surprised to see stainless steel beat titanium. In my experience stainless steel is a bear to drill or cut through but generally easier to bend than even mild steel. I’d be interested in seeing this test done compressing the tubes via their diameter instead of height.
Try straightening the stainless steel slack elbow that supports your shower head. No way you are going to straighten it compared to mild steel.
Alloys and heat treatment in this.
I remember using stainless steel wood screws and they bent super easy compared to normal deck screws. Maybe there are different types of stainless steel ?
Other factors to consider like weight
Me too. I am pretty sure only the Titanium one would make it all the way to earth, if they fell through Earths atmosphere. Can't it withstand the most heat of any metal? Also when crushing, any metal will flex at the point where it is the hottest and therefore the softest spot.
So then, don't use a carbon fiber tube as a pressure hull on a submarine.
They didn't. they used a steel tube covered by Carbon Fiber and epoxy.
@napoliskey Yeah, but if the carbon fiber still failed, it still would've been catastrophic
@@thanos5220 yeah? You know that how?
@napoliskey Cuz it ain't Christmas wrapping for show, like a present. It has a purpose, and multiple ppl who worked there said as much.
@@napoliskey And some of the interior WAS carbon fiber
Titanium was beast mode until I saw stainless steel! That was a surprise.
I too thought the titanium would stronger then the stainless
Common misconception portrayed in movies. Top steel alloys are way stronger than top titanium alloys. It's just titanium has a much lower density. The titanium and stainless steel shown in this video were definitely not the highest grades by far.
But they weren't at equal weight
If they were, you'd understand why titanium is the stronger material
@@Nightdare It only matters in places where you need light weight. Places where weight doesn't matter or you need really high strength steels are used.
I was just about to get my industrial press out to repeat what I had seen. But luckily I saw your message.
3:38 this looks like a guy squatting a barbell😂
Superb experiment. Would have liked to have also compared cross-sectional collapse values. The stainless steel was insanely resistant to deformation. Also, the materials were much less brittle than I imagined.
Which is also why you don't book passage on a submersible without proper certification!
I guess the stainless steel specifications are much higher than avarage, than we imagine. I mean that's not some common pipe, but some exclusive technologies, like for nuclear plants or so.
The stainless was also solid, not a tube, according to the caption. This will alter the results of the test.
@@rb032682 I don't know what he meant by "solid", probably smth related to material specifications, but it was tube, the stainless steel. In the presentation, when he measured diameters and thickness it was tube, and at the end when he picked up the deformed chunk it was also tube.
British Stainless Steel
4:20 it is possible that this is what the 5 people in the submarine heard... seconds later, they would all be instantly dead.... damn...
Yup a robot recorded that sound and they diednot after second it's 1/10th of millisecond its hard to imagine that
The PVC looks like someone holding something heavy whilst doing the splits @ 3:41
Thanks. This was more fascinating than usual. I figured the stainless would do pretty well. It is not super hard, but is very tough. Both the stainless and the titanium kept a lot of strength, after the sides started folding.
Stainless is strong but not as strong as many Steel alloys. Some steel alloys are really strong but hard to work with, hence engine steel blocks are so expensive to make.
@@kiyoshim9593 This is true. Tool steel is strong, for sure, but brittle after heat treating. A sample of the same dimensions as these would have broken, instead of folding, in this test, but probably would have held up to more pressure than any of the others. That would have been interesting to see, also. It might have damaged the press, though.
I once bought some armour plate steel, apparently 30% tougher than standard NATO spec , the guys also said they welded it with stainless steel rods, so I guess it was similar in composition, so the toughness demonstrated here does not surprise me. The Russian Mir subs use 50mm thick maraging steel alloy.
@@Jagdtoq Uhm. Stainless steel have many variations. one costing 4 times more than the others. so its meh.
That submersible was lucky that it survived as many times going down as it did. I feel badly for that 19 year old kid.
I thought he was 16?
Who else are watching this after Apple introduced Titanium in 15 pro ?? They must like this 😂😂
4:25 With the carbon fiber, compression starts at approximately 2000 kg. This is why you don't use carbon fiber for submersibles.
Ok so the takeaway here is to build a sub out of hydraulic presses in the future. Got it.
My top fuel dragster has a compression ratio of 25,000:1 on 8 hydraulic press cylinders.
It's an external combustion engine. Runs on Vaseline glass. 😂
Yeah, anyone knows what the ends of the hydraulic press are made of? Especially the lower one that he moves around freely?
@@Dipj01 Hardened/Tool steel typically.
@@Dipj01I don't know , but probably good ol' NY steel ot Pittsburgh.
I don't know man I'm not an engineer just a pawn in this world
Very cool experiment! Thank you. For more meaningful results, it would be helpful to know what alloys, of each metal under test, was used. Also, what the resin system used for the carbon fiber layup. In other words, some baseline properties. Can you operate the press in reverse for tensile testing?
Regarding the use of titanium for submersibles. The Russians have been using titanium for sub sea vehicles since the late 1940's. They learned that welding of Ti needed to be done in an inert atm.
Amazing job.. would be better if you also compare pressing them horizontally
Is it just me or did the blue pipe take the shape of a little person trying to hold something up and being crushed 😂 3:40
i was thinking the same thing too, it looks like a headless blue person taking a squat while holding a blue plate while getting squashed. 🤣
Seeing what happened to the carbon fiber under pressure gives insight to the failure method caused by cyclic stress on the hull of the research sub made of the same stuff. As well the response of the steel and titanium which are strong and highly ductile, thus resisting cyclic stress induced faults and brittle fracture. This is exactly why these materials are used by the US Navy in the hulls of our submarines. This video is an excellent education in materials properties. The pvc pipe and metals are an excellent example of whats referred in Materials Science as "plastic deformation", same pretty much goes for the carbon fiber. I expected to see the PVC fail via brittle fracture, did the slow pressure build up induce heat and thus make it more ductile? There are four bonding methods of molecules, ionic, covalent, metallic, and van der Waals. It's all about your bond type and the materials either element or compound, molecular alignment be it natural or induced. Theses are all a very well understood and documented failures of the materials, you should read up on why they fail in these manners. A Very cool display of materials science summed up and shown quite nicely. Being a prior Reactor Operator onboard US Navy Nuclear Subs, materials science was a major part of our studies. Pardon the pun but it was "Science in motion"
I REALLY learned! Thanks! Thank you for your service❣️
The port window was only rated for 1300m and they used at least 4 incompatible materials to build the sub. You can’t attach plastics, metals, rubber, and carbon fiber together and not expect the materials to weaken at contact points over time. Commercial flat roofs are notorious for leaks because of degradation along the contact points between metal flashing, plastic vent caps, and various types of roofing materials. Changes in temperature expand and contract those respective molecules at different rates. Add atmospheric pressure and other unknown factors beyond my knowledge and you definitely have cause for concern.
@@kingwillie206 Agreed. Dissimilar materials have faults induced at the boundary. Carbon Fiber is basically fiber and glue. As both are subject to stress, the "brittle" glue is torn from the fiber. This continues on each dive and now there is a large fault area, which can not support what it did when it was new. Carbon fiber is know to only have a few cycles to it before failure. The steel used when I was in service for our class sub was HY80, good for hundreds of hundreds of compression's and its X-ray'd in port to determine hull integrity with a nuclear source on one side of the hull and film on the other.
@@ColdWarVet607 - That makes what he did even more ridiculous. I imagine the X-Ray process would be difficult to impossible with that sub, but I have no clue and doubt he did it even once.
@@kingwillie206 Very Exspense project to do so and of course you need a nuclear source. I would imagine major ship building yards have them but a small private outfit that built there sub probably not. Not sure if carbon fiber can be xray'd...maybe, but probably too expensive to do again. We only got the hull xray'd after initial build if the hull was cut during an overhaul or damage from collisions. Yep that happens more than the public knows.
Can’t tell if this video aged well or not 😂
Such comparisons are timeless.
Current news just puts a spotlight on them…
Aged very well
@@Drehirth in terms of views yes, in terms of topic, hell no.
That tiny titanium tube can hold two adult elephants without breaking a sweat! Amazing!
It gets really interesting when you add how they react to heat. And even more when you think of combining some of the different materials.
Is this what happened to that titanic tourist submarine? It was pretty much a carbon fiber tube.
Yep.
Not really, different loads involved. Subs get squeezed from all directions, not just top to bottom.
Why is this oddly satisfying to watch, especially at this point in time
Nice set of slide guitar tubes!
It would be nice to also test the tension strength of these materials.
As well as torsion and shear
@@ES-sb3ei It is not testing all that. Whatever fails first is teh only thing you have a number on.
If that experiment is ever replicated I'd suggest to include video taken with a thermal camera so that we get an idea of the temperature profile along the length of the test tubes.
The energy spent by the press (force times displacement) must go somewhere if the material heats up - and it needs to - the warmed up parts probably get weaker in absorb even more energy so the compression effect concentrates in these places.
Anyone else here doing personal research about the Titan submarine’s implosion? 😅 Can’t believe the builders opted for carbon fiber over titanium after I watched this.
Once it started to deform, that was the end of it.
Stainless steel seems so incredibly strong yet every fork I get at the restaurant has one bent tine.😮
iphone is made of titanium
Interesting to speculate whether the titanium end caps of the titan would effectively act like the face plates of the press on the carbon fibre tube in this demonstration. Even though the outside pressure around the subs body tube would be equal all around. If there is a weakness along the length of the Hull maybe a similar process as demonstrated started until water could ingress, then pop.
oh wow, had not thought of that.
100 percent what happened. And the port hole was smashed out when the two titanium pieces slammed together and forced everything out the end like a fucked up tube of toothpaste
Sponsored by Colgate.
What I want to know is what that hydraulic press is made of, it’s apparently tougher than any of those metals that got crushed… Make a submarine using the same metals that the hydraulic press is made of… 😮
The problem might be the lack of buoyancy.
I don't know what type of steel the hydraulic is made, but one type of steel is Maraging steel. It would take 22000000 kg of pressure to break it.
You'd have to build it's own rockets to move it
It's just most likely a really thick chuck of tool steel, not maraging steel
@@juliencormier8760
You don't need buoyancy to dive 😋
But semi-serious, you'd use this material for the pressure vessel, and mount buoyancy tanks on it
I like how 3:42 looks like someone is doing a barbell back squat.
I had no idea solid stainless steel would be stronger than titanium. Most interesting!
Thanks for the valuable lesson on what not to do when designing and engineering submersibles.
As noted by others, carbon is not good for compression. But it is good for tension strength. I was surprised by the stainless. I thought titanium would perform slightly better. But SS really out performed them all by a wide margin
The reason the Stainless performed the best is it’s weight, if it was the same weight as the Titanium it would perform worse than it, this is because it has a lower strength to weight ratio than Titanium, but it’s high density means it’s heavier than the Titanium pipe of the same size, it may have a slightly lower strength to weight ratio but it doesn’t matter if it weighs that much more
The reason it outperformed the Low Grade Steel is because of the difference in how the steel was made, the low grade steel wasn’t made to the same specifications as the Stainless, as such it has different properties, in this case a significantly lower strength to weight ratio, the pipes may have been almost the same weight but because the low grade steel has such a low strength to weight ratio it took much less for it to start bending
But isn't this common knowledge? How did they think a tube of carbon fibre would be a good idea for a submarine, where the force is pure compression? i own a glider that has wings made of glass fibre. More modern planes use carbon fibre too. But here the main force is tension, not compression. Even Boeing and Airbus know this.
@@jaydenlobbe7911So? Even if it weighs a lot more we aren't talking about an application that is sensitive to the weight are we? It's not like we are trying to design an airplane, we are trying to build a submersible that needs resistance to compression. That's why the vast majority of submarines use a high strength steel alloy of some type. The shape of the submarine is also going to have an effect with spheres offering the highest compression resistance.
I'd love to see a thermal camera view of that test
Yes but the metals have to be painted first, otherwise the camera will not show the correct temperature due to too high surface reflectivity. I filmed a bare stainless pot with boiling water with my IR camera and it only showed the temperature of the room (which reflected on the pot).
@@skunkjobb very strange! On the camera must be a parameter to configure emissivity of the material, but in any cases the pot will emit more infrared radiation than surrounding environment!
I'd love to see your mom
With the load being applied uniformly I wouldn’t think it would be all that interesting.
Crazy test! Carbon tubes are installed in such a way that they are subjected to tension, not pressure!
If only Stockton would have watched this video and not been in such a Rush.