Talk:Weathering steel

Iron oxide

I'm in Pittsburgh right now, and the sidewalks and plaza around the USS Building are definitely stained by iron oxide. --scruss 02:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool tidbit. Do you have a cite or maybe a pic? I think it's sidewalks, not sideways, by the way... ++Lar: t/c 02:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Change to generic title?

I think this article really should be called "Weathering Steel". There are other producers of weathering steel besides those who hold the "COR-TEN" trademark. I'd like to make this change (to the title and also to wording within the article except where USS COR-TEN is specifically referred to) if no one objects.

Gilmer 19:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Please check and correct as necessary. --Macrakis 16:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Inspection" section

This section implies that weathering steel requires more inspection than other structural steels. That's not really true. It certainly doesn't require more inspection than uncoated nonweathering carbon steels, and coating systems themselves also require inspection and maintenance, so it also does not require more inspection than coated steel. I propose deleting this section.

Gilmer 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Done.

Gilmer 22:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Cor-ten trademark?

One minor problem here -- although USS sold its discrete plate mill to ISG/Arcelor Mittal in 2003, it kept the Cor-ten trademark. USS no longer sells discrete plate, but it still sells Cor-Ten strip-mill plate and hot rolled sheet. This link [1]is to a USS webpage dated 6/29/2007, which lists Cor-ten products and notes "USS COR-TEN® is a registered trademark of United States Steel" Besst 02:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Water Gardens citation

The linked site talks about a drowning. There is nothing in the article about poles falling over. There is nothing in the Water Gardens article along those lines either. -W0lfie (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've come to say the same thing. I erase the phrase.--Pere prlpz (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pere prlpz (talk • contribs)

"Properties" sectiom

What are now the first two paragraphs appear to have been added as an excuse to link to more spam, but they do have some possibly worthy content. I'm just not convinced they're saying all *that* much more than the very first paragraph, or that it's really all that accurate. Leave them? Fix them? Delete them? Gilmer (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Unwrapped?

A curious little stub popped up at unwrapped steel consisting simply of "a metal created specialy for the birds nest stadium in 2005". Can anyone elucidate? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The "unwrapped steel" entry seems to have been deleted, probably on the grounds that there ain't no such thing. The intent of the reference to "unwrapped steel" in all the press surrounding the stadium was the length all that steel would have if it were "unwrapped" from "around" the structure. There was no special steel called "unwrapped steel" developed just for this structure. Gilmer (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Metric vs some archaic measure systems...

Would be nice to see international measurments rather than some archaic inches etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.140.217 (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Could someone update the whole article to the international metric system! What a waste! Who really knows about inch etc??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.140.154 (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Both units systems are the standard here. Whichever one is the base units in sources we use, we use as a base, and convert to the other way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And we do so automatically now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears that thicker steel is stronger when measured in US units; but weaker when measured in SI. The conversion needs to be checked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.194.119 (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please specifically note where you see this. Wizard191 (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Metric system or properly System International is common standard by default, it was introduced to eliminate both archaic and exotic systems, and to introduce scientific and universal methods to determine measures counting. It is commonly recognised as 1st one. It should be clearly indicated if System International is not used. However I agree with using the system used in a particular source, but most recognise SI-metric system as basic or the first one. Note: the catastrophe of first Mars vehicle before Curiosity had a reason in this - an American technician in NASA has used values in SI as values of speed in inches, and finally taped the same digits into steering computer, so whole ships has smashed on Mars surface... Either he didn't know how to change from one system to another, or has not noticed difference, or was not educated/smart enough. So SI-metric system is used commonly and internationally, while are for local use in some societies which use it due to traditional reasons - with full respect to all those who does it. Using imperial units has something nostalgic, but for pragmatic and practical use SI gives much better effects, and it is commonly understood, unlike inches. I don't expect you to change your habits, this change will take some generations perhaps. I believe it will be done, as this process is happening. 178.43.246.181 (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't personally care one way or the other, but note the specific source used for the properties data here is an Indian distributor product sheet which is all SI. If somebody wanted to reverse the units they would be justified I think. Gjxj (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

ASTM designation format

Yes, I know, ASTM themselves leave out the space between the number and letter on some websites when they list their standards. However, if you actually bother to look at the standards themselves, there is a space betweent the letter and number. This is true both in the title at the top and in any references made from one standard to another in the body of the standard itself. The authoritative source for ASTM formatting of standard designations has to be the standard itself, not some description of the standard by some other source. Gilmer (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as they list it both way, I don't see what the big deal is. It a matter of minor formatting, as such I feel that this is quite a small thing to fret over. Wizard191 (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If it wasn't a big deal, then why did you go to the trouble of (incorrectly) undoing my changes? Next time you undo someone's work, make sure you're basing your decision on a reliable source. Gilmer (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

So, a few years after the Great ASTM Designation Format Battle of 2009, they did get rid of the space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilmer (talk • contribs) 01:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Usage

I fixed the railcar paragraph a little, but it's still a little iffy. While the IC Highliners might have been unusual at that point, a lot of railroad cars have been made of Cor-Ten, particularly freight cars and pre-stainless passenger cars, and AFAIK they've all been painted. The New Haven's Osgood Bradley cars and the IC Green Diamond are two examples of Cor-Ten passenger stock, and there's plenty more. The steel was indeed used for its rust resistance, and was considered a pretty significant advance over plain carbon or copper-bearing steel in that respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.190.147 (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

bending past 90'

Can youaffectively bend past 90' without cracking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.201.74 (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Depends on material thickness & bend radius, but it's no different in this regard than non-weathering steel. Gilmer (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Length of time for patina to develop

From the "References" section: "COR-TEN - Weather & Corrosion Resistant Steel: Technical Data" ---

Formation, duration of development and protective effect of the covering layer on weathering steels depend largely upon the corrosive character of the atmosphere. Its influence varies and depends mainly upon general weather condition (e.g. continental) macroclimate (e.g. industrial, urban, maritime or countryside climate) and the orientation of the structure components (e.g. exposed to or shaded from the weather, vertical or horizontal position). The amount of aggressive agents in the air has to be taken into account . In general the covering layer offers protection against atmospheric corrosion in industrial, urban and countryside climate.

I understand that climatic conditions vary, but surely there's some ballpark length of time, though, in which to expect the patina to develop. What's the purpose of using the stuff if the patina doesn't develop for, say, 12 years or even 6 years? Does anyone know of an average time or of an average range? Information like this will surely help the article. Thanks for your time, Wordreader (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 23 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 15:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Weathering steel → ? – While the article's current title is already good enough in my opinion, if its lead section is anything to go by, it's apparent that "COR-TEN steel" (maybe "corten steel" or simply "COR-TEN"?) is a more common way to refer to the sort of steel the article refers to (looking further to Google search results, I found 7.28 million results for "corten steel", 32.4 million results for "weathering steel", 32.6 million results for "cor-ten steel", and 209 million results for "cor-ten"), so I feel like changing the article's title to either "COR-TEN steel", "corten steel", or simply "COR-TEN" would make the title in line with WP:COMMONNAME and the "recognizability" criterion of WP:CRITERIA. All said, let's look into whether the article's title should be changed to any of the aforementioned three options or kept as it is through this discussion. 2001:44C8:428A:27FC:753F:EEA4:2607:68EE (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree that the article's current title is already good enough, and WP:COMMONNAME itself states: When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. While I'm not a priori against using genericized trademarks as titles, they certainly pose "problem", and here we have a widely accepted, neutral alternative. No such user (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not clear the proposed name is the WP:COMMONNAME. Vpab15 (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A disadvantage not mentioned: restoration after defacement

Surprisingly missing from the "Disadvantages" section is any mention of one of its primary aesthetic disadvantages: the permanent change to the appearance of the surface after the removal of graffiti, tagging or other vandalism. A prominent example of this would be the frequent tagging of Richard Serra's public sculpture installations (he works almost exclusively in weathering steel). His installation in the desert in Qatar frequently gets defaced by visitors, requiring professional remediation (often by media-blasting), which takes the steel back down to its raw state. This means that an entire planar surface has to be ablated and repatinated, since just treating the defaced area would result in a repatinated area that will not match the surrounding patina. I can find plenty of media mentions of different aspects of this (say, Serra's work being vandalized, or weathering steel's patination process) but nothing so far that combines them. Can anyone help with this? Bricology (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)