Skip to content
Back to the collection

Processing bulk natural wood into a high-performance structural material

Jianwei Song, Chaoji Chen, Shuze Zhu

Show all 22 authors

Mingwei Zhu, Jiaqi Dai, Upamanyu Ray, Yiju Li, Yudi Kuang, Yongfeng Li, Nelson Quispe, Yonggang Yao, Amy Gong, Ulrich H. Leiste, Hugh A. Bruck, J. Y. Zhu, Azhar Vellore, Heng Li, Marilyn L. Minus, Zheng Jia, Ashlie Martini, Teng Li, Liangbing Hu

2018 · Nature

Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
12
Readers
12
Months
5
What’s in a score?

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

12 selected excerpts · 12 total mentions

aspenmayer
Neutral mention · rule
It's hardly "regular wood" though, as the structure mentioned was constructed using a specific kind of engineered compressed wood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InventWood > In 2018, [Liangbing] Hu's laboratory reported that partially removing lignin from natural wood and then compressing the remaining cellulose under heat produced a material roughly three times denser than the original timber and an order of magnitude stronger in bending and tension.[2] The material was commercially named Superwood. > [2]: https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature25476 | https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25476
Animats
Neutral mention · rule
This is a relaunch. Here's their launch video from May 2024.[1] The video has some CG of a piece of their wood, plus stock shots of trees, cities, wind turbines, people looking through microscopes, etc. U. of Maryland announced this specific process back in 2018.[2] They got a paper into Nature.[3] Densified wood is over a century old. [4] You can buy something called "Lignostone".[5] But that is a material where they took the lignin out and put some plastic in. (Remember "transparent wood" from a few years ago. Same concept, with a transparent plastic.) This new process takes the lignin out and compresses the cell structure. If you could send in $20 and get a little cube…
Read the full comment
of the stuff to look at and test, this would be more convincing. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiHABi97rU8 [2] https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/news/new-densified-wood-... [3] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25476 [4] https://jwoodscience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s1008... [5] https://www.roechling.com/us/industrial/lignostone
mppm
Neutral mention · rule
For all those who are peeved by "stronger than steel" claims: No it's not. Or only in an extremely specific, not very practically relevant way. Their Nature paper [1] has the details, but let me summarize: Tensile strength along the fiber direction is up to 600 MPa, which is higher than mild steel used for ordinary construction (~400 MPa). Except that mild steel is isotropic and highly ductile, i.e. it will deform by 50% or so before finally breaking, while the densified wood will snap as soon as its strength is exceeded. There are also steel grades that are way, way stronger than mild construction steel. Flexural and compressive strength is up to half as high (300 MPa,…
Read the full comment
below mild steel). Strength in the weakest direction (across fibers) is around 50 MPa, or 1/8 of mild steel. This densified wood is essentially a rather weak fiber composite. With careful planning it can be used instead of steel in construction, but their marketing is simply BS. 1. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25476
enopod_
Neutral mention · rule
This seems to be the original research paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25476 [edit: whoops, it's the same paper] "First, natural wood blocks were immersed in a boiling aqueous solution of mixed 2.5 M NaOH and 0.4 M Na2SO3 for 7 h, followed by immersion in boiling deionized water several times to remove the chemicals. Next, the wood blocks were pressed at 100 °C under a pressure of about 5 MPa for about 1 day to obtain the densified wood" Pretty simple and straightforward.
vogu66
Neutral mention · rule
I looked up the numbers in the original paper a little (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25476) I don't know much about materials science, but I had a few classes about it. Seems like their wood gets ~550 MPa in ultimate strength in tension. Seems like their material is brittle (so it behaves like a spring until it breaks), therefore you probably want a safety margin, because at 550 MPa it breaks. Note the unit is a Force/Area, you can compare materials with the same cross-section. In compression they say it's about 160 MPa in axial load, it can be more or less in the other directions (due to wood having fiber it's not the same in all directions, and there they…
Read the full comment
compress it perpendicular to the fiber so they get one direction stronger than the axial load and one weaker, but I guess for a beam you mostly care about axial strength). Torsion and flexion are directly dependent on compression, shear and tension, didn't find shear. Although I'm not entirely sure how it works for materials that aren't the same in all three directions like steel. For steel, depends on the steel but a quick search (https://www.steelconstruction.info/Steel_material_properties and https://eurocodeapplied.com/design/en1993/steel-design-prope...) says ~200 to 400 MPa in tension for yield, at which point it starts changing shape instead of behaving like a spring, then 350 to 550 MPa for strength, at which point it breaks. I believe in multiple applications they do go apply forces where the metal bends a bit and adapts to its application, but I'm not sure. Regardless, that would mean the wood in tension is equivalent to very strong (presumably very expensive) steel. In compression, steel is from 170 to 370 MPa apparently(https://blog.redguard.com/compressive-strength-of-steel, didn't find much else easily because numbers were strange on other sources), so I guess steel would win on that one. But this is comparing the raw strength. In reinforced concrete, you add the metal for tension resistance, concrete is there to sustain compression, so it wouldn't matter much. For beams, the shape of beams is optimised to resist in the direction it needs (e.g. the H cross-section resists to bending in one direction). But you probably can't do that with their wood (they say for now they are limited in shapes), so you'd need more material, and probably it would be stronger overall since you have more material. Question then is how much material (in weight, compared to steel) do you need (they say 10 times less but it probably doesn't take into account the shape), and how much does it cost? I'm guessing they could also make composite beams at some points too, with not only wood in them. Then for mechanical applications, there might be also other things that enter the game. In their paper they needed to coat the wood so it wouldn't swell with humidity. For any application with friction, not great. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if it's more sensitive to friction than metals. Note that the numbers are from 2018, they may have improved the process.
gnfargbl
Neutral mention · rule
If you follow the link from the article [1], then there's an abstract that describes the process. It sounds like they boil the wood with sodium hydroxide and sodium sulphite, then heat and compress the wood, which somehow leads to better alignment (and/or linking?) of the cellulose polymers. I don't know what the implications are for recyclability, but there's no mention of injecting other materials so perhaps it decomposes in a similar way to ordinary wood? [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25476
Youden
Neutral mention · rule
A YouTuber reproduced the process: https://youtu.be/CglNRNrMFGM (The original process is documented in the Nature article: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25476) I suspect the issue with the other use-cases you mentioned is that it's very rigid. It isn't at all ductile or bendable the way steel is. It would either need to be pressed directly into the shape you need during manufacturing or pressed into a large piece of raw stock then subtractively processed to get the shape you need. Pressing might be economic for standard profiles like beams but it won't be for pieces like the chassis of a car. To be clear, "pressing" here doesn't just mean a standard hydraulic press, the press also needs to be heated and the wood needs to be held under pressure for a while. You can't just stamp it the way you can with steel panels.
beanjuice
Neutral mention · rule
Beautiful. We are in a golden era of citizen science, where access to knowledge, tools to connect, tools to process data, and the ability to communicate this is at an all time high. The kind of stuff you see on Youtube is amazing: people like AppliedScience achieving incredibly things in the garage, or recently NileRed took a nature paper [0] 1 step further and published it on youtube [1]). From a chemist/material scientist perspective: Whether the results of the Riff trial may ever have a p value suitable for nature/science, likely not. When it comes to the human body and our biology, a mass trial like this may even be more useful than traditional studies, where…
Read the full comment
pre-existing biases in data collection may weed out the most useful 'Riff'. Better than that, the information collected by mold_time is regularly released and discussed, in the open, on twitter/x [2]. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25476 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CglNRNrMFGM [2] https://twitter.com/mold_time
erpellan
Neutral mention · rule
We already have the technology to build net zero carbon buildings. But the building trade is both notoriously conservative and extremely effective at lobbying to protect their profits (at least in the UK). Superinsulated, almost airtight houses with ground and air source heat pumps and solar PV should be mandatory, as should banning of all in home boilers in new builds. That’s all easily achievable even without some of the recent novel inventions such as engineered wood: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25476 We have to stop treating the atmosphere as a free line of credit with no limit that we can just dump all our externalities into, or we’ll find out very soon that there is no such thing as an externality at planetary scale. We’re all in the same hermetically sealed box, breathing each other’s farts. Sorry for the rant. It’s hard to stop once the despair creeps in.
cbsmith
Neutral mention · rule
The story does make a lot of references to previous work done, and even has a quote about how this method seems expensive and no better than existing methods. It looks like the paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25476) provides the detail you are looking for.
icegreentea2
Neutral mention · rule
The paper is behind a pay wall, but their figures and extended data stuff is free to view here: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25476#extended-data They say that their ultimate tensile strength of their material is ~600 MPa. Steel ranges from 250-2500 MPa.

Keep following the thread.

More in Other research

More from the same topics.