Talk:Engineered stone

Added some information

Have added some information relevant to the use of engineered stone / agglomerated stone in the UK and Europe, where as well as kitchen worktops the same type of material is quite extensively used (and mis-used) as floor tiling. As it's my first foray into editing on Wikipedia, I could do with someone to help link the two Standard numbers I refer to in the text to the reference list.

FYI: BS EN 16718: 2005. Agglomerated stone - Terminology and classification.

BS 5385: 2009. Wall and floor tiling - Part 5: Deing and installation of terrazzo, natural stone and agglomerated stone tile and slab flooring. Code of practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dummy half (talk • contribs) 16:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terrazzo

This article should be incorporated or at least referenced with the article on terrazzo.

Done. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition could use some work

Hello, I work in this field and find that this article is almost entirely focused on the Quartz application of the product, when in fact there is at least 3 different type of product even if we simply go by Breton's machinery. This article is probably written by someone from the counter top industry which rarely works with the other 2 version.

The most original form of this product is the marble based resin stone developed in the early 80s, the stone used is of course as I already implied, Marble, which has very different property from Quartz, it is very rarely used for counter tops but is much more widely used for flooring than the former. the biggest advantage relative to the other types is the fact that it's produced in a single block instead of individual slab.

The 3rd, probably least common though I think would probably gain ground going forward, is replacing resin with cement mix, AFAIK the Breton machine for this also produce in slab, and is mostly used with Quartz stone as well. theoretically it's possible to do this with the marble products and I know for a fact that multiple engineered marble companies are trying hard to develop this.

I'll try to rework this article a bit when I have the chance.

(RollingWave (talk) 08:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Proposed merge with Solid surface

Let me begin by disclosing that I've worked professionally in the countertop industry for 28 years, and have written a column on countertop fabrication for a leading kitchen and bath industry trade publication for over 20 years. I oppose merging this article on Engineered stone with the article on Solid surface, as discussed on the talk page for the other article. These are distinct categories of materials, and have different appearances, performance characteristics and chemical compositions. They are fabricated and installed using different tools, equipment, techniques and skills. They have different advantages and disadvantages, and are maintained and repaired differently.

Most products classified as "solid surface materials" use alumina trihydrate, a very fine powder, as the mineral filler, and are based on acrylic resins, polyester resins or a blend. It is not correct to call such products "all-plastic" as the mineral filler (not a plastic) amounts to the majority of the product's composition. Acrylic based solid surface materials are not subject to UV degradation. Corian, the market leader in solid surface materials, has manufactured marbleized patterns for over 30 years, and granite-like patterns for over 20 years.

The engineered stone products use much larger and harder mineral (quartz) particles. I am unaware of any using crushed marble, since marble is significantly softer and is subject to degradation when exposed to acidic foods and beverages such as citrus, vinegar and wine. There is a third product category often called "cultured marble", which consists of a blend of calcium carbonate and polyester resins, with a thin protective resin layer on top called a "gel coat". This is a product commonly used to make less-expensive vanity tops.

Wtshymanski is entitled to personal opinions about terminology and what's a "pompous marketing term", but on Wikipedia, we use the terminology that the reliable sources use, and the generally accepted generic terms are "solid surface material" and "engineered stone". These terms are used by trade associations, trade publications and by most manufacturers when speaking of their competitor's products.

Don't expect most "home decorating books" to provide you the sort of standardized test results you mention, Wtshymanski, because this information is considered boring and irrelevant by 99% of residential consumers. However, most major manufacturers publish this information, and it is made available to architects and engineers working on commercial projects, some of whom actually pay attention to this sort of information.

I edit only occasionally in this area, since I make my living from these products and therefore have a conflict of interest. However, I am willing to advise and collaborate whenever my experience might come in useful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we could get citations for all of that, it would be an excellent addition to the articles. Otherwise it's just pompous marketing jargon. What would you consider a reliable reference in the industry? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is problematic. The topic discussed under both these articles is clearly the same thing, so there should be a merge - however what should it be called? Solid surface doesn't have much public recognition outside of the USA (and that little state in the North, where Wtshymanski lives). Engineered stone is also a problem, as there are a great many "engineered stone" products from Coade stone onwards, and most of them are for flooring or architectural purposes, not for countertops, and certainly not for these acrylic-based countertops - even if they're not currently being described in this countertop-focussed article, as it stands. I support the merge, but can't think of a good title. Picking obscure over ambiguous, I'd choose solid surface of the two, but hope for better suggestions. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Books search of the term "engineered stone" here shows that 29 of the first 30 results use those two words to describe the specific countertop material discussed in this article. The other result includes a quote about a "well engineered stone house" which is clearly a random but logical use of the two words next to each other. "Engineered stone" is the terminology used in reliable sources to refer to this notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Google is now the complete arbiter of all knowledge, then that's great, we can just abandon the whole encyclopedia as unnecessary. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Objection. Facts not in evidence. Where does the above say Google is the sole arbiter? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, I used Google Books simply as a tool to rapidly locate a group of 30 books that use the two words "engineered stone" in tandem, and I then looked at the usage in each book to determine whether that usage the same as this topic. The usage under discussion was in excess of 96% in that search, and I disclosed the one counter-example I found. I believe that my search was a legitimate one for the purposes of this discussion, and I don't see how anything I did or said detracts from the value of this encyclopedia. My intention is only to improve it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Engineered stone" is one term for Corian & similar materials, used as countertops. However it's also used for many other forms of artificial stone, some used for countertops (but not based on the same broadly polymer-based formulation with dust fillers) and also those artificial marbles using quite different binder formulae. The term is thus somewhat ambiguous. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what our co-editor is basing his objection on - surely he doesn't object to books that Google Books can find? The problem I found is that mostly I got books aimed at consumers on countertop selection, with very few showing up that gave recommendations to, say, architects or kitchen designers. If one was designing a countertop for a commercial kitchen or institution, for example, what sorts of references would one be looking at to assist in material selection? What do the teachers say? "If the client has *lots* of money, use {x|y|z}, if it's a chemical workbench use {p|q|r}, if it's social assistance housing use as little as possible of {m|n|o}, if it's a butcher shop use {j|k|l}}", that sort of guideline. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Professionals would rely on Trade literature such as (in the United States) the two magazines I mentioned previously, Kitchen & Bath Design News and Kitchen and Bath Business, as well as more general publications like Sweets Network. I am surprised there is not a Wikipedia article about Sweets, which is a massive publication (now online) used by architects and contractors. It is a primary source because it reprints thousands of specification sheets issued by manufacturers. Trade associations like the National Kitchen & Bath Association have training programs and co-sponsor a large annual convention called the Kitchen & Bath Industry Show. There is also the The International Woodworking Machinery & Furniture Supply Fair abbreviated as "IWF" . The US Green Building Council covers the environmenal issues regarding building products for professionals. Medium to large architectural firms will often have "box lunch" informal training sessions in a conference room, where vendors will do a 45 minute presentation for working architects and furnish a free lunch as an incentive to attend. These days, internet searches are, of course, also an essential tool, and often lead professionals to Wikipedia articles such as this one. Hope this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I consider to be reliable sources regarding countertop materials

General sources:

My knowledge of reliable sources is limited to those in the United States. I am sure that reliable sources published in other countries are also available. Some material published in trade publications, such as new product announcements and reports of company personnel changes, are based primarily on press releases and should be taken with a grain of salt. Articles signed by staff writers or industry experts usually have greater reliability, in my opinion.

International Surface Fabricators Association

Surface Fabrication magazine stopped publishing in December, 2009, but its useful archives are still available online

These are the leading general interest trade publications for professionals employed in the kitchen and bath industry in the United States. They are not consumer magazines. They are competing publications and both have been published for decades:

Kitchen and Bath Business magazine

Kitchen & Bath Design News magazine

More specific sources:

What is Solid Surface?

ATH – Filler With An Attitude

What is Quartz Surfacing or Engineered Stone?

The Manufacture of Engineered Stone and Installation of Quartz Surfacing Countertops

I have written a column on countertop fabrication which has been published in Kitchen & Bath Design News magazine for 21 years now. I believe that my column has a good reputation in the industry, but I will leave it to other editors to decide whether it should be considered a reliable source:

My recent columns in Kitchen & Bath Design News magazine

10 year archive of my columns

In conclusion, here's a column I wrote called Wikipedia and the Kitchen & Bath Industry. Comments are welcomed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These look like valuable resources for interested editors. Google searches with the usual keywords are of low utility. As you point out in your article, most articles about brand names in Wikipedia are useless. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the distinction that "solid surface" materials can be worked by conventional cabinetmaker's tools where "engineered stone" requires special tools could be documented, that would be a useful and important thing to say in both articles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's broadly true, but there's an overlap. Many countertop products sold as "engineered stone" are the same product as solid surface and are soft enough (i.e. a low content of hard mineral fillers) to work with woodworking tools. Other "engineered stones" (typically used for fireplace hearths or wall panels in high-traffic areas such as lift lobbies) certainly want diamond tooling. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link, Andy, to any company in any country selling a product that they (or any reliable professional source) call an "engineered stone" that can be cut with ordinary carbide-tipped saw blades or router bits. You may be right, but I have never seen such a product. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold

This book [1] goes both ways, calling Caeserstone at two places "solid surface" (pages 329 and 353) and at another "engineered stone" (page 158). What percentage of quartz do you have to hit before everyone agrees it's an "engineered stone" product as opposed to a "solid surface"?

Put most simply, the authors of the book made a mistake when they categorized CaesarStone with Avonite. CaesarStone is very similar to Cambria, and they are engineered stones. Avonite is very similar to Corian, and they are solid surface materials. Generalist writers may make this sort of error in good faith. I venture to say that there is no experienced countertop (bench top, work top) fabricator on the face of the earth who would fail to understand the distinctions I am emphasizing here. Mainstream solid surface materials do not include any quartz particles at all, as they will destroy carbide tooling. They use alumina trihydrate, or (in one case I'm aware of - Swanstone) chopped glass fibers as their filler. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The US company doesn't use the phrase "engineered stone" but the Australian Web site does. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many manufacturers may be reluctant in certain circumstances to use generic terms to refer to their own products as their motivation is to present their product as unique, and generic terms may imply that their product is pretty much the same as the competitor's products. The market leader in particular usually avoids generic terminology. Perhaps their marketing folks have concluded that certain terms work better in some countries than others. However, accurate generic terms are important in neutral coverage of a topic, although I recognize that there may be some differences between U.S. Canadian, British and Australian usages, for example. Those can be explained in the article if they are of significance.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a continuum here? We have all-plastic products called "solid surface", which perhaps have very fine alumina or similar powder as a filler; you can work these with carbide tipped tools, though I imagine all of them are more abrasive on tooling than is wood. We have the so-called "engineered stone", which is mostly various types of mineral ground (quartz, "cultured" marble, etc.) to sand consistency, with some resin to bind it; these need water jets or diamond wheels to cut, they are too hard for conventional carbide saws. There's the various concrete surfaces, which are sand bonded by non-polymer cements (and which don't need to be cut because they are cast in place).There's terrazo, also cast in place. Then there's stone, such as marble, granite, slate, etc. which are large pieces of natural stone, perhaps with the cracks reinforced with a little epoxy. Some of the "engineered" products have good data sheets on the Web, so perhaps a comparison of impact strength, density, etc. would be useful -probably at the countertops article and not just here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are a few "mutant" products or those that elude easy categorization, the vast majority of the commercially available products fall into distinct categories. Under discussion here are the engineered stones and the solid surface materials. I really do not think there is a grey area in the middle. A product is either one or the other. Gel-coated cultured marble, on the other hand, is a third category. There is a bit of a continuum between cultured marble and solid surface materials, though. A really high quality vacuum densified cultured marble of a specific formulation is pretty much equivalent to a low end solid surface material. I think that when alumina trihydrate instead of calcium carbonate is used as the filler, it crosses over to be a solid surface material, but I don't claim expertise in cultured marble products. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what we need to explain in these articles! Alumina trihydrate is just ...dust? powder? It's a filler, as opposed to something like Lucite (not a countertop material) which is all polycarbonate plastic. Solid-surface materials are the same all the way through ...are the "cultured marble" products always gel-coated, in other words, lose their luster when cut or abraded? --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Content added

I have rewrote a good part of the article to include the marble based agglomerated stones along with the quartz for a more inclusive take on the product, the previous article was not as much engineered stone as simply engineered quartz. (RollingWave (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Clarity for the random reader?

Could someone with knowledge of the subject work on the third paragraph, please? It winds itself around multiple terminologies, and concludes with a tautology. It could use a reference or two, too.

My best guess for simplification is: // Engineered stone is also commonly referred to as agglomerate or agglomerated stone, the latter term being that recognised by European Standards (EN 14618), which includes materials manufactured with a cementitious binder. Engineered quartz is commonly referred to as 'quartz surface' or just 'quartz'. \\

If that's not right, please work on it for us. Thanks.

--Fenwayguy (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Health impact and ban

Surely the health issues and ban in Australia are worth of mention in the summary of the article? 2A02:2455:17EF:5400:D5C4:55CC:2031:5841 (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]